Tennessee Gentleman
New member
zukiphile said:
Isn't this what they call a Nash Equilibrium?
If We Had To Swallow One New Gun Control Law, Which One?
- Thread starter 5whiskey
- Start date
- Status
Isn't this what they call a Nash Equilibrium?
I think we are going to get “all of the above” and more unless we are very lucky. They can steal elections now so I think it’s just a matter of time until it’s “turn them in or go to jail”. The bitterest of ironies is I was just getting to a place where I could really afford some interesting guns.
Carl the Floor Walker
Moderator
Laws? Seems laws for one side of this country have no meaning. America now is where the Lawless Rule. Billions of dollars in damages across this country, fear, destruction, chaos, censorship, corruption and that side have very little accountability or consequences. That is why it continues. They have turned the laws to work against their enemy, the people that obey the law.
They love to view anything like a gun forum where law abiding citizens are actually on their knees voting for which law would be the most acceptable before they even take that away. They are laughing in the face of all of us and they are winning.
Quote from the book Catch 22. They have a Right to do anything we can't stop them from doing".
They love to view anything like a gun forum where law abiding citizens are actually on their knees voting for which law would be the most acceptable before they even take that away. They are laughing in the face of all of us and they are winning.
Quote from the book Catch 22. They have a Right to do anything we can't stop them from doing".
NO, we don't HAVE to.
The fact that might happen is different than accepting it WILL happen. They will certainly TRY, but it is NOT a given they will succeed.
Obama didn't get any massive sweeping new gun control. Biden might not, either.
Despite what they WANT us to believe, and them acting as if it were, its NOT a done deal yet, and may never be.
We are at the disadvantage end of democracy here, so we must do what we can but the outcome is NOT fixed.
Honestly, they're not. Without going too far into the weeds, the party pushing for gun control didn't do well at all this election. Sure, they got their guy to be President, but the Senate looks like it's going to remain in Republican hands. The only real gains in the House came from Republicans, and despite what the oh-so-smart commentators on cable news say, there's a very real chance of Democrats losing the House in 2022.
All the rioting and unrest we're seeing in several cities is a grim echo of the civil unrest of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Most Americans have absolutely no desire to go back to that.
As Napoleon (or maybe Voltaire--it varies) once said, "never correct your opponent when he's making a mistake."
Maybe its the virus, maybe its colder weather, maybe its coincidence or perhaps just the halting of 24/7 news coverage of the riots but things seem to have been pretty quiet on that front for several weeks leading up to the election, and since then....
Guess we'll see what happens in the spring, but right now, there doesn't seem to be the level of civil unrest going on that there was a few months ago.
I would caution all to not take the other side's crowing of victory to come as anything more than boasting, and every proposal about firearms is, at this point, wishful thinking on their part.
Yes, they certainly will try to get their dreams fulfilled in the coming year(s) but at this point, there are a lot of things still capable of stopping that, including their own leadership's priorities.
More gun control is ONE of the things on their wish list, and its priority is negotiable within their own organization.
Guess we'll see what happens in the spring, but right now, there doesn't seem to be the level of civil unrest going on that there was a few months ago.
I would caution all to not take the other side's crowing of victory to come as anything more than boasting, and every proposal about firearms is, at this point, wishful thinking on their part.
Yes, they certainly will try to get their dreams fulfilled in the coming year(s) but at this point, there are a lot of things still capable of stopping that, including their own leadership's priorities.
More gun control is ONE of the things on their wish list, and its priority is negotiable within their own organization.
This is a good take away. There is a good bit of reporting on the infighting within that party. One democrat used the term “dumpster fire” to describe that parties election performance. They got the presidency, and I submit that it’s largely because Trumps twitter fingers and impulsive comments/actions. This was not an election that was a referendum against one party though. No matter how many talking heads try to spin it that way. Democrats lost a lot of seats in the house, and the Republican Party had to defend almost twice as many seats in the senate. The senate did look possible to flip, even likely at times, but those dreams fizzled pretty quickly. Tom, as I’m sure you know, midterm elections are usually unfavorable to the party who holds the presidency. Even with popular presidents. A lot can happen between now and then, but I would say the house more likely than not will flip in 2022.
Another important point. Even if the senate ends up in a tie with Kamala presiding, the democrat party doesn’t have the political capital that many think they do right now. They want to muck around with healthcare some more, and their actions will likely not be widely popular. I doubt the party will want to be tarred and feathered too bad in the midterms, like is sure to happen if they push the green new deal, radical gun control, universal healthcare, et al. They have to nibble around the edges as always. Plus, a few democrat senators in moderate or light red states have already said they would block any effort to end the legislative filibuster or alter the Supreme Court. Lastly, I personally believe Joe Biden winning gave just enough of a victory that turnout for democrats will be lower in the runoff. I believe republican voters will be more galvanized and have a greater call to action, having just lost the presidency and not wanting to lose the senate.
I would dare say new gun control is quite unlikely at this point, short of maybe a UBC bill passing through if both runoffs in GA go the wrong way for the 2nd amendment. We have millions of new gun owners this year alone. Many of them are democrats, and many will be less susceptible to having ammo sin taxes and other measures pushed through. I know I sound quite optimistic (I am) considering I started this thread/poll. I didn’t start it to sound doom and gloom, or to infer gun control was imminent. I just wanted to have the conversation, and also plant the seed that we may have to negotiate “the least bad option” at some point in the future. Though I don’t think it’s come to that yet.
And then there's this Gallup poll that says "Support for stricter gun control laws lowest since 2016". (Maybe because of all the new gun owners.)
Unfortunately for me I don't take much stock in polls any more because so many people I know just refuse to participate in them and I know a LOT of people who just lie to pollsters for sport. Still, doesn't Gallup have a pretty good reputation?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx
I think it telling that gun control didn't come up in the last few debates and was hardly mentioned as an issue. I think the "other side" just assumed their candidates would sweep into office and "of course" THEIR candidates would be RIGHT THINKING about gun control and they didn't want to energize the deplorables who might stir up the vote against them.
Note: the Gallup poll was around November 16, 2020.
Unfortunately for me I don't take much stock in polls any more because so many people I know just refuse to participate in them and I know a LOT of people who just lie to pollsters for sport. Still, doesn't Gallup have a pretty good reputation?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx
I think it telling that gun control didn't come up in the last few debates and was hardly mentioned as an issue. I think the "other side" just assumed their candidates would sweep into office and "of course" THEIR candidates would be RIGHT THINKING about gun control and they didn't want to energize the deplorables who might stir up the vote against them.
Note: the Gallup poll was around November 16, 2020.
Last edited:
Every time someone mentions the polls, I am reminded of two things...
the first is a 70s Doonesbury cartoon where the hero is a door to door poll taker .
He asks the question, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for?
Richard Nixon?
Santa Claus?
The Easter Bunney?"
The homeowner replies, "hmm let me think about that..."
at which point Doonesbury thinks to himself "hmm this is gonna be tougher than I thought..."
The point here is, LOOK at the question asked, and the choices of answer ALLOWED...
The second thing was a local farmer, who was about as political as a rock. Somehow, during the Clinton years, he got on somebody's poll list. They would call him every 3-4 months, ask what he thought about the Pres, and the job he was doing. For a couple years, since he really didn't care, he gave them approving answers. Then, one day, just to be contrary, the next time they called he told them he thought the Pres was doing a terrible job.
THEY NEVER CALLED HIM AGAIN....
Next time, and EVERY time you see "polls say" remember that they can say anything they want and "adjust" their questions and data to support any conclusion they feel like.
And, not only can they, they certainly do....
the first is a 70s Doonesbury cartoon where the hero is a door to door poll taker .
He asks the question, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for?
Richard Nixon?
Santa Claus?
The Easter Bunney?"
The homeowner replies, "hmm let me think about that..."
at which point Doonesbury thinks to himself "hmm this is gonna be tougher than I thought..."
The point here is, LOOK at the question asked, and the choices of answer ALLOWED...
The second thing was a local farmer, who was about as political as a rock. Somehow, during the Clinton years, he got on somebody's poll list. They would call him every 3-4 months, ask what he thought about the Pres, and the job he was doing. For a couple years, since he really didn't care, he gave them approving answers. Then, one day, just to be contrary, the next time they called he told them he thought the Pres was doing a terrible job.
THEY NEVER CALLED HIM AGAIN....
Next time, and EVERY time you see "polls say" remember that they can say anything they want and "adjust" their questions and data to support any conclusion they feel like.
And, not only can they, they certainly do....
Spats McGee
Administrator
Always ask who took the polls and and what the questions were. If you can't get a straight answer, that should send up red flags.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The Second Amendment doesn't include the word "mandatory," or the word "qualification."amd6547 said:
That is exactly something that is Constitutionally authorized.
Clause 16. "The Congress shall have Power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Here it is December 2020 and daily covid deaths are higher than they've ever been and still rising. I suspect the poorly researched vaccine is going to be highly problematic and we're on the cusp of a huge financial collapse.
Something tells me gun control in the near future is not going to be one of our primary concerns and any new gun restrictions that do come up will probably be widely ignored by a majority of the currently armed populace.
Still plenty of room for pessimism if you ask me.
Something tells me gun control in the near future is not going to be one of our primary concerns and any new gun restrictions that do come up will probably be widely ignored by a majority of the currently armed populace.
Still plenty of room for pessimism if you ask me.
Well, you're probably right, the criminals who are already breaking the law won't...
But, personally I don't want to ignore laws. I don't want to be in violation of them. I don't want the authorities to have cause to arrest or fine me.
There was an old Bob Hope movie where he was mayor of New York City and told the cops to go out and arrest somebody he didn't like. When the cops said arrest him on what charge he replied there's over a thousand laws on the books, he must be breaking some of them. I laughed at the joke but it ticks me off that I should have to live that way.
The only type of gun control I support, is me being in control of my guns. Do you really believe these cowardly politicians who cave in to cowardly people, believe more gun control will make Americans safer. I think they do it out of spite. They just don't want you to have it. It isn't about safety. It's about them being in control and dictating what you can and can't have. And what they deem as being safe. Know this, if they can take one of your rights away, yes "right", not a privilege. Then they can take all of your rights away.
- Status