Yes (if he don't die) (then it's no bet)

It's kind of distressing how little the voting public affects the eventual party nomination, between the overemphasis on certain states, the superdelegates, and the like. 538 put out an article recently showing that endorsements from other elected officials seem to have a much stronger correlation with receiving the nomination even than primary results. (Obama was a rare exception, someone who didn't start picking up those endorsements until his primary campaign gained some steam and he was seen as a legitimate candidate, not just a spoiler for Hillary.)

My ideal would be publicly funded elections, with ballots open to anyone who could get the requisite signatures or what have you, and a preferential ballot-counting system. No, I don't know how we get there from here.

wtf I followed dkgo's hide thread video and I somehow ventured into politics?

lol @ this thread.

THANKS OBAMA

Let me think about it a little longer. His odds for the GOP nomination are seemingly continuing to drop, and I don't want to let my personal preferences talk me into a bad bet.

Fair enough, qtb anytime (unless someone else takes the action first)

6.5 still open here.

feels like sando is a printing press right now.

So some militant Islamists perpetuate a terrorist attack and all you lefties want to pretend the issue is gun control.

Nice.

How many people do you think these "terrorists" would have killed if they couldn't have bought any guns?

When someone like Losing all says "the lefties are rooting for this to be a white guy", and I say they're projecting, this is exactly what I mean.

Daily News arguably going even harder Friday:

The "ain't no way Trump is ever president" side of me wants to snap take the bet, but the "I can find books offering Trump for the GOP nomination as low as 3:1" side of me has pause.

You would genuinely love the politics forum. This is a politics forum post--insulting, devoid of reason...just plain ole hot garbage not worthy of this thread.

The practical attempts to limit ammunition make those proposals not really worth talking about. They're either not going to work because they aren't draconian or it would be, you know, a complete destruction of privacy. It also doesn't take much ammo to commit a mass shooting. A few hundred rounds is a day or so at the range for many people, and it's plenty to kill a lot of people.

Registration is a political non-starter. Let's be real to what that list would be: a list of guns to take away later. (we can be honest here right? because that's exactly what that list would be used for eventually)

Assault rifles have been banned since the 30s.

Assault weapon is a meaningless term and the law had no effect on crime.

Crime has been dropping for decades in the United States and the attempts to circumvent the constitution instead of actually trying for the needed changes are bad for anyone who respects our system of government. I'd have a lot more respect for the anti-gun people if they tried to change the second amendment instead of pretending like it doesn't exist.

I'll start with the point that "crime dropping" does not mean gun violence is dropping, move on to the point that things being political non-starters NOW does not mean the battle is lost forever, then ask you to define what you mean by "circumvent the Constitution" without relying on Federalist Society vagueries like "all guns are protected by the Constitution no matter their design or purpose," then ask you to expand upon why Constitutional originalism is the correct way to interpret law, then point out that originalism actually does not embrace assault rifles anyway, then point out that I'm not aware of what practicalities make limiting ammunition sales a non-starter, then argue that defining reasonable firearms is not actually that hard, then I guess . . . hang up and listen?

ammunition is pretty lol easy to make.

Gun control has much more to do with politics than the second amendment.

I mean we're like one Supreme Court justice away from being able to do away with the current absurd interpretation of the second amendment. It's silly to say the Constitution has to be amended to implement serious gun control.

Too many things going on at once, so I'll start off with the basic stuff. All sorts of violence is down from a peak in the late 80s and early 90s. That includes gun violence. It's hard to find good data sometimes because republicans made some pretty awful decisions to stop research in the 90s, but we're talking about rates that have fallen by about half. Suicide rates have been on an upswing, but are still down by just under 10%.

(source)

As for the second amendment stuff, it clearly guarantees the right to keep some sort of gun. Like all other rights, there are obviously limitations that are very open to interpretation. However, there's no way you can read that and say, 'Well, I think we can ban all handguns' without losing any sort of claim to legal consistency when you're looking at something like, gay marriage.

Those things are basic things I think we should all be able to agree on.

(also ffs assault rifles != assault weapons, it's super unclear what you mean there)

Some sort of gun, sure. Like a musket. Or a reasonable modern analogue like a bolt action rifle or a break action shotgun.

^ This does not matter at all.

1) It obviously still matters
2) The number of guns per person has gone up for the past few decades in the USA. Gun death rates have dropped by a ton. If that's the correlation you want to push it doesn't hold up that well.

Weed and sports betting should be legal

is there anything that is illegal that is actually hard to get?