What I Fear From Biden Presidency

[doodle]

I think you have a pretty good plan to deal with future possibilities.

As far as the gun stuff, I understand your perspective but I think you have an unhealthy paranoia regarding danger...like personal safety hypochondria. I lived in a city with a crime rate well above the national average in the ghetto for more than a decade rehabbing houses and didn't have a single issue other than a stolen bicycle..and a couple tools disappearing. Yes, that's just my personal anecdote but I think sometimes the gun crowd gets a little too worked up relative to the level of danger that actually exists...like they are running at defcon 1 constantly when perhaps defcon 5 would be more appropriate. From my experience knowing your neighbors and being on friendly terms probably does more for ones safety than anything else....especially in the neighborhoods I lived in where everyone knows everyone and word travels fast.

That being said, I do keep a shotgun in room and a handgun in the car....sometimes I'll carry but generally that's a pain and I'm in pretty good shape...would rather run if at all possible in public situations than have to face the potential legal issues of shooting someone....if someone breaks into my house its on though but there would be little legal issues with that.

I still fail to understand why anyone would need a machine gun for personal protection though. I can't think of any home protection situation where one would need a machine gun vs what a shotgun provides.

[Mark Leavy]

Are there really full grown men that don't know how to run a lathe and a mill?

[doodle]

I don't oppose AR15s for the reasons you stated. I'd rather have a shotgun for home defense but to each his own.... No I don't worry about bad guys with body armor. Is the cartel after you? In previous conversations you were advocating that civilians should be free to possess nuclear bombs and cruise missiles. I'm not sure about lines with you or if you think there should be any limitations at all.

[doodle]

Are there really full grown men that don't know how to run a lathe and a mill?

Yes, and they are the same men who got degrees in womens studies and think they can get rid of guns by taking them out of gun stores.

Are there really full grown men that don't know how to run a lathe and a mill?

Very impressive. Do your man cards fit in your wallets?

[doodle]

I'd respectfully request we do not go down this route, because I'm asking what additional new gun control rules should be put in place, not what should be taken away. Also I admit my views are extreme and most will disagree.

I'm looking to find some kind of compromise that will make people on the left happy, since leftists seem to want more gun control, but when pressed, their specifics make no sense to me, or to anyone else who knows about guns.

So I'm trying to identify, if I were part of a bipartisan committee to introduce new gun control, what would I be able to advise on a technical perspective to help word the law?

it's dumping snow here and have to go plow soon....need a few hours sleep so no time to give real response....but I'm generally ok with gun laws on books already. I think there could be some debate regarding bump stocks and high capacity magazines...

I'm more concerned with mental health and access to it. I think a lot of people could use more help with that. I also think those with documented violent mental health disorders or hallucinations and convicted violent offenders should have limitations on firearms possession.

I'll give it all some more thought while pushing this morning.

[Maddy]

I'm more concerned with mental health and access to it. I think a lot of people could use more help with that. I also think those with documented violent mental health disorders or hallucinations and convicted violent offenders should have limitations on firearms possession.

Just curious: Does that include delusional sociopaths who are incapable of human emotion?

[sophie]

I'm more concerned with mental health and access to it. I think a lot of people could use more help with that. I also think those with documented violent mental health disorders or hallucinations and convicted violent offenders should have limitations on firearms possession.

Just curious: Does that include delusional sociopaths who are incapable of human emotion?

No, because Axis II disorders aren't necessarily considered a mental health issue unless the person comes to medical attention for it. That's pretty much only if a severe Axis I disorder comes along for the ride.

If we can sidetrack a bit from the gun control discussion....I AM in fact very concerned about some of the things that Tom mentioned and rationalized away in his first post:

Unlimited, uncontrolled immigration: In a perfectly libertarian world, such people would in fact add value to society because they'd work and spend their paychecks, integrate into society, and become upstanding citizens doing their part. The problem is that the plan is to welcome them with a long list of handouts: free medical coverage, food stamps, government-subsidized housing, bilingual education for their kids, translation services & Spanish-language signs & services everywhere. All this costs money. A LOT of money. In New York state, fully 25% of the population are on state Medicaid and the costs are something like 1/3 the entire state budget. The vast majority of these are immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean - and that would instantly double if it's extended to illegal immigrants. That's on top of local programs e.g. in New York City, which drive up property taxes. You can't avoid paying property tax whether you rent or buy a home.

The use of war as a form of entertainment and distractor from things that the Biden administration doesn't want people paying attention to. For example, if Repubicans keep the Senate and the Durham investigation continues and it starts to look bad for Biden, expect an invasion of somewhere or other in short order.

Green new deal mandates: Increased energy & auto prices are only the tip of that iceberg. Expect mass unemployment in regions like West Virginia, Texas, parts of California, and Pennsylvania (i.e. coal/oil country) when those industries are decimated. Solar panels and parts will mostly be imported from China not manufactured here, so our energy grid will become as dependent on China as our medical supplies are - and we saw how that played out in March. Just as is the case in California, the new infrastructure will not be built as quickly as the old one is torn down, meaning energy shortages and rolling blackouts, if not outright power failures. High on your list of "Democratic survival strategies" is to arrange for backup power especially for summer heat waves when you really don't want to do without A/C.

Crime: This is going to continue to increase everywhere as national laws restricting police activities, bail, jail etc are implemented. The good news here is that we already have all these things to the Nth degree in NYC, and crime has gone up probably about as much as it's going to. Judging from my citizen app it's more like 10x what it was pre-deBlasio, not 2x. But, it's concentrated in minority neighborhoods that I have little reason to visit anyway. My neighborhood has remained completely clear. It sucks for law-abiding minorities especially business owners in those neighborhoods, which will help herd them toward the Republican camp in future.

There are other things I am sure, but these will do for now.

For me personally:
Increased auto & gas prices won't be an issue for me.
High taxes in NY will be a major issue, but effects can be managed to minimize the hit as Tom says.
Medical care - I can manage this for myself, mostly by avoiding 90% of care and only going when I have something that actually requires medical intervention.
Power outages: A potentially serious issue for me, because being in an apartment my resources are limited and a heat wave without A/C could literally be a killer in NYC's new humid tropical climate. I've been looking at these, assuming they ever become reality:

https://orison.com/

[doodle]

I don't oppose AR15s for the reasons you stated. I'd rather have a shotgun for home defense but to each his own.... In previous conversations you were advocating that civilians should be free to possess nuclear bombs and cruise missiles. I'm not sure about lines with you or if you think there should be any limitations at all.

I'd respectfully request we do not go down this route, because I'm asking what additional new gun control rules should be put in place, not what should be taken away. Also I admit my views are extreme and most will disagree.

I'm looking to find some kind of compromise that will make people on the left happy, since leftists seem to want more gun control, but when pressed, their specifics make no sense to me, or to anyone else who knows about guns.

So I'm trying to identify, if I were part of a bipartisan committee to introduce new gun control, what would I be able to advise on a technical perspective to help word the law?

Unfortunately, as Techno has repeatedly pointed out, they will never be happy. As soon as you make a concession, they want more. And then more. There is no compromise or satisfaction on the left. They want complete control and nothing other than crushing and silencing their opponents.

That leftist desire to crush and silence opponents is exactly why the right has to crush and silence the left! .

[doodle]

It's dumping snow here and have to go plow soon....need a few hours sleep so no time to give real response....but I'm generally ok with gun laws on books already. I think there could be some debate regarding bump stocks and high capacity magazines...

I'm more concerned with mental health and access to it. I think a lot of people could use more help with that. I also think those with documented violent mental health disorders or hallucinations and convicted violent offenders should have limitations on firearms possession.

I'll give it all some more thought while pushing this morning.

Thanks, get some rest and hope the snow doesn’t hit you too hard, my friend.

My issue with psych laws are:

1- if the person is such a danger that we have to restrict their gun rights, then why are we allowing them to roam society free where they can stab people with screwdrivers or knives? Is it just a matter that we limit how many people they can hurt? So we lack the probable cause to arrest them and lock them up but we somehow do have the cause to restrict their gun rights. A form of probation? And they might be able to stab 10 people but they can’t gun down 50?

2- these types of laws are used to restrict access of firearms to veterans, claiming they have ptsd, since the government fears veterans the most during a potential civilian uprising, since veterans would be best suited to lead and engage in an uprising against the military they previously served in. Thus a corrupt government will unfairly mark veterans as ptsd and remove their 2A rights.

As far as bump stocks, Orangeman made them illegal by executive order.

As far as “high capacity magazines”I refer to them as standard capacity since that’s what the gun was designed around.

Also, I find such restrictions to disproportionately hurt the law abiding civilian while not stopping a criminal. First, there’s so many of these out there, criminals will have no problem getting them. Second, a civilian will be restricted to 10 rounds or 7 rounds or whatever, and might not be enough during a self defense encounter where reloading may be difficult under stress. So a law abiding civilian might die due to having his ability to defend himself neutered.

But even if we could snap our fingers and get rid of them all, a criminal on a shooting spree would have all the time in the world to reload his 10 round small mags, since he has the advantage and ability to do so. He’s being proactive and can pre-game where he will shoot, where he will drop to cover and reload, and where he will move. But someone involved in self-defense is reactive and is much harder to reload in that context. So the law hurts the civilian significantly more than the criminal.

Tom, I'd love to discuss this stuff with you but can we chunk it into smaller segments? I use my phone for all this and it's really hard trying to work with that much text. Also, maybe if we focused on just small parts at a time we could come to some consensus.

Focusing on first point...

1- if the person is such a danger that we have to restrict their gun rights, then why are we allowing them to roam society free where they can stab people with screwdrivers or knives? Is it just a matter that we limit how many people they can hurt? So we lack the probable cause to arrest them and lock them up but we somehow do have the cause to restrict their gun rights. A form of probation? And they might be able to stab 10 people but they can’t gun down 50?

I have worked with a lot of individuals with pretty severe schizophrenia...on their meds they are ok...able to function semi normally....off their meds they can behave quite erratically. Their mental health disorder inhibited them in many areas of their life...holding down steady work...having normal relationships. But, they would come to school and try to learn and better themselves. When things got frustrating or they were triggered sometimes they would get angry and fume and vent and occasionally yell. Outside of school I'd hear about fights they might get in or conflicts theyd have. Overall, though...I didn't feel like they were that much of a danger to society. Not enough to lock them up for the rest of their lives...that would be truly inhumane. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to give them concealed carry permits and have them carrying around a handgun. There is just too much chance of something going wrong. It would be like giving a five year old child a handgun (not to compare them to five year old children) there are certain mental processes that aren't developed or engaged that are required in order to safely possess a weapon like that.

[pp4me]

I just watched Scott Adams latest youtube posted about 4 hours ago and he is still giving Trump a 60% chance of retaining the White House.

With all the talk of Trump finally conceding I was starting to think he would until I heard that George Bush congratulated BIden on his victory and announced that the election was fair and honest. How he could possibly know that is beyond me. Knowing Trump and how he feels about GWB I suspect he will take that as further incentive to press the battle in court.

Can he still win? Well, watch the Scott Adams youtube and you might think it isn't that impossible.

[doodle]

I have worked with a lot of individuals with pretty severe schizophrenia...on their meds they are ok...able to function semi normally....off their meds they can behave quite erratically. Their mental health disorder inhibited them in many areas of their life...holding down steady work...having normal relationships. But, they would come to school and try to learn and better themselves. When things got frustrating or they were triggered sometimes they would get angry and fume and vent and occasionally yell. Outside of school I'd hear about fights they might get in or conflicts theyd have. Overall, though...I didn't feel like they were that much of a danger to society. Not enough to lock them up for the rest of their lives...that would be truly inhumane. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to give them concealed carry permits and have them carrying around a handgun. There is just too much chance of something going wrong. It would be like giving a five year old child a handgun (not to compare them to five year old children) there are certain mental processes that aren't developed or engaged that are required in order to safely possess a weapon like that.

That seems very reasonable.

My concern is that with restrictions to the second amendment, we can have a time in the future where a corrupt government starts classifying certain groups of people as dangerous. Jews during WW2 Nazi Germany. Veterans with PTSD in the 2020s where the government wants to remove their ability to fight against potential massive corruption.

I suppose for this discussion to be productive, our basis of understanding has to be that the purpose of the second amendment includes the ability to fight a government that has become tryannical over time. If you disagree on this point, then I don't think this particular sub-discussion will be productive. You don't have to agree it's a good idea, or that it would be successful, just that it's the intention of the second amendment.

Because it's more likely in my estimation that a government would gradually erode the second amendment rights of people they deem a threat to future tyranny/control.

So, how do we find a middle ground between restricting access to adults who should not be incarcerated, but also should not be allowed to own guns, without allowing for the government to leverage those controls against people for whom should be allowed to own guns, but the government is fearful of, and attempts to classify as prohibited persons from gun ownership?

That seems to be the hardest compromise to make. If we can solve this, we can make peace in the middle east.

I need to give some more thought to this....I think though it is interesting that Trump sided with taking guns away before due process..

"In a Feb. 28, 2018 meeting at the White House, in addition to suggesting stricter gun laws, the President said he thought due process for mentally ill people was not as important as making sure that they do not have guns.

“I don’t want mentally ill people to be having guns. Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said."

[doodle]

Can I ask you honestly, if a democrat had been quoted as saying exactly what Trump did would you react differently?

I mean he also banned bump stocks....I really don't see that much difference between Trump and moderate democrats on guns...

[vnatale]

I just watched Scott Adams latest youtube posted about 4 hours ago and he is still giving Trump a 60% chance of retaining the White House.

With all the talk of Trump finally conceding I was starting to think he would until I heard that George Bush congratulated BIden on his victory and announced that the election was fair and honest. How he could possibly know that is beyond me. Knowing Trump and how he feels about GWB I suspect he will take that as further incentive to press the battle in court.

Can he still win? Well, watch the Scott Adams youtube and you might think it isn't that impossible.

After the Yankees killed the Red Sox 19-8 to take a 3-0 lead in 2004 I was not counting the series as won until they won a game 7, which, of course, they never did.

I will not count Trump defeated until all his legal challenges either are not honored or lead to nowhere and ALL agree Biden is set to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021.

Being a sports fan teaches one that, to quote Yogi B, "It's not over until it is over!"

Vinny

[vnatale]

I thought a little more about the previous sub-question of dealing with mentally incompetent adults and gun ownership. I've clarified my own thoughts on the matter.

I believe it's an issue of the doctrine of competing harms. Whereby both scenarios have negative consequences, and we must choose the one with less negative consequences.

On one hand, if we have no gun control, then crazy people can get guns and kill innocent people.

On the other hand, if we do have gun control then the government can eventually declare certain groups of undesirables as prohibited persons to guns, such as veterans claiming they have PTSD. Or Nazi Germany removing guns from Jews.

Thus, the competing harms are: create an environment that allows crazy people to more easily murder innocents, or create an environment that invites tyranny?

The likelihood of an individual event of a crazy person accessing a gun for violent crime is much higher than the statistical likelihood of a government becoming corrupt and tyrannical. However, the cost of the event is magnitudes different.

Would we rather a 100% chance of crazy people hurting a few dozen, or maybe a few hundred innocent people each year?

Or rather a 0.01% chance of the government becoming corrupt, disarming the populace slowly, and initiating a genocide?

Genocides happen all the time, around the globe. It's not impossible for them to happen in the United States. If we disarm the populace, what next when on the precipice of a government-sponsored genocide? Write an angry tweet? Cast a vote that doesn't count?

Also, gun control doesn't just negatively impact the crazy person who should be prevented from buying a gun. It also negatively impacts (false positives) on victims of domestic violence who left their abuser and need to buy a gun. And in states with a waiting period, are unable to buy a gun for 1 to 2 weeks, and effectively left defenseless. These must be added in to the cost.

I could also make some sarcastic comment, which I will do, because why not, similar to how Vinny says he doesn't live in fear of being the victim of a violent crime. I don't live in fear of crazy people committing gun violence. I don't know of anyone who was ever assaulted by a crazy person with a gun who shouldn't have passed a background check. Do you?

I know of many countries that have disarmed their populace prior to a genocide. But not a single case of a crazy person getting a gun and using it in violence. I'm sure it happens but the odds seem low, so I'm not worried about it.

Back to the topic -- I think it's a doctrine of competing harms issue and I don't think there is a solution to restrict certain individuals from owning guns that cannot be corrupted by a tyrannical government or could not result in the death of a domestic violence abuser who is unable to buy a gun in time to protect her own life.

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Vinny

[vnatale]

In the light of what everyone else is bringing up what I'm about to say is superficial.

I fear listening to both Biden and Harris's terrible sounding voices for the next four years.

Worst sounding presidential related voices since Clinton's predecessor.

Trump's voice was one of the better ones. Added to his entertainment value!

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

I’m thinking about Schrödinger’s cat and the relationship to Biden. Is he alive or dead? Depends on the observer. Three chears to Max Planck and his cronies!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat

[pp4me]

Quote from the article below....

On Saturday night, the president-elect addressed the nation in his first speech since being projected as the winner. He urged Americans to bring an end to "this grim era of demonization in America."

Hard to believe he could say that with a straight face. Does anyone believe the Democrats are going to stop portraying Republicans as racists and Nazis? Biden's ads, especially at the end of the campaign, were some of the worse I've ever seen when it comes to demonization.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/bi ... ncy-day-1/

[Lonestar]

If I were a leftist looking to make effective inroads into gun control, I believe I would spend more time learning about the guns I want to ban. Being able to quote statistics is one thing, being able to articulate which firearms are a priority to eliminate is another.

It is incredible how many times on MSM talk shows it has been implied that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was almost a panacea to crime in the U.S. When listening, one would assume that all AR platform rifles evaporated from possession. High capacity magazines also disappeared from existence. All far from the truth, even though the left offers glowing statistics how gun crime dropped during this period. I don't believe there was a day during the AWB that an AR15 and a handful of 20 or 30 round magazines could not be purchased, albeit at inflated prices.

If trying to convince someone to agree to a particular side of an argument, it only takes a small amount of ignorance to make the debate useless. Other arguments such as The Gun Show Loophole and Universal Background Checks fall into this area.

I would hope if I ever become and enemy of gun ownership I will get my facts straight before I suggest solutions.

[Mark Leavy]

If I were a leftist looking to make effective inroads into gun control, I believe I would spend more time learning about the guns I want to ban. Being able to quote statistics is one thing, being able to articulate which firearms are a priority to eliminate is another.

It is incredible how many times on MSM talk shows it has been implied that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was almost a panacea to crime in the U.S. When listening, one would assume that all AR platform rifles evaporated from possession. High capacity magazines also disappeared from existence. All far from the truth, even though the left offers glowing statistics how gun crime dropped during this period. I don't believe there was a day during the AWB that an AR15 and a handful of 20 or 30 round magazines could not be purchased, albeit at inflated prices.

If trying to convince someone to agree to a particular side of an argument, it only takes a small amount of ignorance to make the debate useless. Other arguments such as The Gun Show Loophole and Universal Background Checks fall into this area.

I would hope if I ever become and enemy of gun ownership I will get my facts straight before I suggest solutions.

That's a very reasonable argument, Lonestar. But completely wrong.
Talking about guns from a sound knowledge base doesn't add any credibility to the target audience. Zero. It makes you a gun nutter.

The best way to achieve gun control is to talk about how scary guns are. That's the theme. Don't deviate.
Happy to help.
Mark

[Lonestar]

Well............you are both right. I momentarily drifted away from reality.

I guess the question that always goes through my mind about the people that show up on main stream media is "do they really believe all the leftists propaganda they pour out, or do they just think we are stupid enough to believe it? Or both?

[doodle]

I'm more surprised by the people that fall in line behind Trump. How is it not completely apparent what a liar this man is? What he is doing now is no different than 4 years ago and no different than what he has done his entire life.

Screenshot_20201111-084539.png (103.46 KiB) Viewed 2067 times