Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    Maybe the answer really is simple after all: get money out of US politics.

    If politicians' re-election depended on the actual will of the people and they weren't beholden to big- and dark-money donors then it would be a completely different ball game.
    • CommentAuthorkorkskrew
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    Posted By: duncan torusMaybe the answer really is simple after all: get money out of US politics.
    Getting money out of politics is very, very far from simple.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    The solution is to amend the Constitution to define "militia"
  2.  
    ...and "natural-born citizen". lol
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    I just saw a post on the 'net referring to the pro-gun people who are up in arms (so to speak) about calls for Gun Control as "Ammosexuals". I like that term and will be using it from now on.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    Posted By: duncan torusMaybe the answer really is simple after all: get money out of US politics.

    By getting rid of money, presumably?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    Posted By: korkskrew
    Posted By: duncan torusMaybe the answer really is simple after all: get money out of US politics.
    Getting money out of politics is very, very far from simple.

    Beat them at their own game; get people to fund your political parties. Saunders showed how. Labour in the UK are also showing how many members just might fund an effective fight against well funded special interests (aka the Tory party!).
  3.  
    Posted By: korkskrew
    Posted By: duncan torusMaybe the answer really is simple after all: get money out of US politics.
    Getting money out of politics is very, very far from simple.
    Difficult, sure. But it could be simple.
  4.  
    Posted By: BigOilRep
    Posted By: duncan torusMaybe the answer really is simple after all: get money out of US politics.

    By getting rid of money, presumably?
    I like where you're going with that! But maybe a little too ambitious at this point.
  5.  
    Posted By: pcstruBeat them at their own game; get people to fund your political parties. Saunders showed how.
    That's what we're trying to do in the meantime anyway. But I don't think it is sustainable. I know I can't afford it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    Posted By: duncan torus
    Posted By: pcstruBeat them at their own game; get people to fund your political parties. Saunders showed how.
    That's what we're trying to do in the meantime anyway. But I don't think it is sustainable. I know I can't afford it.

    Can't afford anything? It is about people chipping in what they can. Not sure it needs to be entirely sustainable - first hurdle is getting an alternative elected; after that, the legislative programme itself would roll back on special interests to some extent.
  6.  
    Yes, I am chipping in what I can, on numerous fronts. And on the one hand I am happy to because it is important to me and I want to have some small influence if I can, but on the other hand I do it begrudgingly because ultimately I do not like having to use money as a proxy for voting (in the political context that is, I'm fine with the idea of "voting with one's dollars" in the consumer context). And no matter how strong the grass-roots movement it will always be outspent by the corporations. Also, Bernie Sanders-type fund raising might be feasible for campaigning, but can they also go on to match the lobbyists' gifts? It's not just getting elected, it's also about eliminating the bribes that occur once in office.

    Not sure it needs to be entirely sustainable - first hurdle is getting an alternative elected...
    Yes, that is the point. That's why I say it (increasing small donor donations) is not sustainable, because it is only a temporary means to an end, not the goal in itself.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2017
     
    This requires an American solution to an American problem.

    My own state takes a portion of lottery revenues and dedicates it to programs to combat gambling. Fuel is taxed to pay for road maintenance.

    Why not a tax on ammunition and arms sufficient to pay for the care of the victims? This would include compensating dependents of the deceased. Big business ahead.

    Similarly, tax the sales of opioids to pay for addiction recovery programs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017 edited
     
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017 edited
     
    What's the difference between Minnesota and Louisiana?

    What do Canada and Argentina have in common?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinWhat's the difference between Minnesota and Louisiana?
    Socio-economics.

    Posted By: alsetalokinWhat do Canada and Argentina have in common?
    Their numbers of gun related deaths per 100,000 people relative to their numbers of guns per 100 people seem to be a bit on the high side compared to other countries.

    Is there any rather blindingly obvious outlier in the above graphs?
  7.  
    Posted By: DuracellSocio-economics.


    Can you be more specific? How does SES affect the correlation between gun ownership and per-capita gun deaths?


    Posted By: DuracellIs there any rather blindingly obvious outlier in the above graphs?


    Heh... of course there is, but isn't it the usual statistical practice to toss out such blatant outliers when calculating correlation coefficients? This is not to deny that the USA is way off the "main sequence", but the actual correlation between per-capita gun ownership and per-capita gun deaths isn't that strong among the listed countries.

    I think some of us were more surprised at Canada's position in those graphs, rather than USA's.



    I'm not trying to defend the gun madness of the USA here. Second Amendment notwithstanding, I see no reason whatsoever that a USA private citizen should be allowed to possess more than one semiautomatic assault-style rifle, one bolt-action high-accuracy deer rifle, one pump or autoloading shotgun, one concealable handgun, and one K-Bar knife.
  8.  
    Posted By: alsetalokinthe gun madness of the USA
    Nailed it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSwissie
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2017
     
    Posted By: loremanThe solution is to amend the Constitution to define "militia"


    http://www.thehypertexts.com/Slavery%20and%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Slave%20Patrol%20Militias.htm

    Madison changed his first draft to one that unambiguously declared that the southern states could maintain their slave control militias.
    His first draft of the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
    But Henry, Mason and other slaveholders wanted the southern states to be able to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into its present form.