Will you accept the election results?

[Tero]

The entire cast will be shot Jan 1. Muslim internment camps done for swearing in day.

[tattuchu]

[Jason]

Accept them? Shi-eeeeee-it.. I predicted them!

[Brian Peacock]

Trump is not about 'disinterested service to the Nation'. He's more about the Nation servicing his interests.

[Svartalf]

trump is the kind of guy the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against, that they have not done this clearly proves the system has been subverted and it's time for it to go.

[pErvinalia]

...

[Brian Peacock]

Trump is the kind of guy who thinks his father's wealth is one of his own personal virtues. He embodies the aristocratic mentality, from the ostentatious taste in decor to the overly elaborate wig. He isn't interested in a government by the people, of the people, for the people. Trump has already subverted that idea, because for him it's a government by his people, of his people, and for his people all the way.

[Forty Two]

trump is the kind of guy the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against, that they have not done this clearly proves the system has been subverted and it's time for it to go.

The difficulty is that Clinton was the kind of gal the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against. It's probably just as likely that there are delegates, say, in California or New York that would like to switch their vote to Trump. If the electoral college members switch their vote, then it must be remembered that it is not a "given" that the only decisions made to switch will be from Trump to Clinton.

[Forty Two]

Tell me how to distinguish the semiautos to be banned from the ones not to be banned, and I'll likely be on board.

Easy.

Military-use semi-automatic weapons: Not banned.
Civilian-use semi-automatic weapons: banned.

You can drop the 'semi-automatic' part there as well.

Well, that I have to disagree with, because it's (a) not even arguably respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which does exist, albeit not "absolute," (b) it's not a practical distinction of one kind of arms that would be impermissible while leaving other arms permissible, (c) it is not practical in the sense of how many people in the US live, and (d) your suggestion is just a glib,thoughtless and non-serious hand-waving of the problem away.

With respect to (c), the US is a very big country with many diverse lifestyles. You'd ban the Amish, who often live like it's the 19th century, from having arms on their farms and such? A shotgun or a rifle is a tool for the daily lives of rural folks who live closer to the land that people in apartments on 5th Avenue and 70-whatevereth street in New York city. For example, I live on the very edge of suburbia. I live in a suburban neighborhood with a homeowner's association and the like, and drive to an office every day to work. However, when I'm outside, I can hear cows moo-ing in the distance, and I routinely see folks riding horseback as I'm driving home. There's a farm nearby, and forests nearby, filled with deer and other game animals.

Also, the distances are a bit greater than some folks might be used to. My house is a 15 minute drive at 50 miles an hour from nearest hospital. If called, the police will usually take 15 minutes to get to my part of town, and while I applaud that kind of response time, that is an eternity when/if someone is breaking into a home. Thankfully, crime is extremely low in our town, and I would have little fear leaving my door unlocked when I went out (I don't because it's easy to lock and why take a chance). However, the reality is that in the rare cases where someone is going to break into a home, the residents have to take self-help action or simply lay down and accept the invasion.

[Svartalf]

trump is the kind of guy the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against, that they have not done this clearly proves the system has been subverted and it's time for it to go.

The difficulty is that Clinton was the kind of gal the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against. It's probably just as likely that there are delegates, say, in California or New York that would like to switch their vote to Trump. If the electoral college members switch their vote, then it must be remembered that it is not a "given" that the only decisions made to switch will be from Trump to Clinton.

Maybe, but Clinton won the popular vote whereas Frump won per a skewed system that was put in place to avoid populists like him, ergo, the system is bad and ought to be stashed in the dustbins of history's failed experiments.

[Tero]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

The semiautos you think are so poor for hunting and so good for human killing are not different than various more standard looking hunting rifles. The only practical distinction is the look of the weapon.

It's clear that you know little about rifles (I owned several as a young man, and did quite a lot of hunting out in the bush). The military style assault rifles available to civilians in the US are, inherent to their design, optimised for killing humans at short to medium range. They have smaller cartridges (typically 5.56 mm), and are considerably lighter than hunting rifles, whether those be bolt action or semi-automatic - a heavier weapon with a larger cartridge is more accurate at the long range often needed by hunters. The assault rifles frequently have up to 30 round magazines (and yes, of course I know they are not fully automatic, but that doesn't stop a deranged killer emptying his magazine very rapidly via single shots, then reaching for another). I know what type I would prefer if I were contemplating a mass killing in a crowded area...

The lunatics who amass such weapons are not hunters or competition rifle shooters. They have them because they fear other humans, and want to be prepared, either for an apocalyptic breakdown of society, or the paranoid fear of big government. It's not surprising that a certain number of people with such fears will go over the edge, and create one more tragic American mass shooting...

The AR-15 is available in various calibers, but if you compare the common 5.56/.223 caliber AR-15 rifle, to, say the Remington Model 750, you'll see that they are roughly the same rifle as a matter of mechanical function and performance. Other than the shape, there is little to no difference. This Remington 750 rifle. The differences between the AR-15 and the Rem. 750 lie in their appearance. The Remington features a streamlined design traditionally recognizable. The AR-15 is modernly shaped involving more ergonomic features.

Assault rifles, moreover, are not available to civilians, generally speaking, in the US. An assault rifle is an automatic weapon capable of select fire. That's not semiautomatic, and it's not what we're talking about. Assault rifles are already basically banned and unavailable to civilians in the US.

As far as the smaller caliber 5.56, that doesn't mean it's not good for hunting. The 5.56 is used for small game hunting, and a gun like the Remington 700 series bolt action rifle is commonly available in the 5.56 caliber. It's not even semiauto. Also, the 5.56 round is virtually identical to the Remington .223, which has been around since 1959, and was developed as an adjustment to the Remington .222 cartridge. This size round has been used in sporting rifles for an extremely long time.

As far as weight, the civilian AR-15 is about 7.5 to 8.5 pounds and the Remington 750, for example, weighs about 7.5 pounds, and is therefore about a pound lighter. You are right that the military used automatic/select fire M-16 is lighter, at just over 6 pounds (without the bullets - which the soldier will carry much more of), but the civilian semiauto AR-15 is heavier than that. Another semiatomatic hunting rifle, the Ruger Model 44, weights less than 7 pounds.

Here's the Ruger Model 44 - fires a .44 caliber.

[Forty Two]

So, your thesis was that the rifles that look more like the military style weapons are more optimized for killing humans because they are lighter and fire lower caliber rounds. However, that thesis is countered by the two examples I gave you of traditional looking hunting rifles, the Ruger .44 and the Remington 750, both of which are lighter than the AR-15, which you say is "optimized." Also, the .223 caliber is a common sporting rifle, often used for hunting and is the same size as the 5.56. Often, guns that can fire the .223 can also fire the 5.56. And, they are typical hunting guns, and that caliber is seen in both semiauto and in bolt action rifles.

The last bit you mentioned was clip size. Now, I have no problem with limiting the size of available clips. That bit makes sense to me, but it is not something inherent in the gun. The reason it makes sense is that for the purposes of hunting, you really aren't looking to fill the animal full of bullets. For the purposes of target shooting, reloading is not really a big deal after a few rounds. And, for the purposes of home defense, while being able to fire without reloading often may be helpful in a situation where someone is defending themselves, I think a rational case can be made to limit the size of the magazines so that when there are situations where someone is using a rifle in a shooting they at least have to pause here and there.

[Forty Two]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

The electoral college was created for a variety of good reasons. Pretty much it's a reflection of the fact that the States pick the President, not a pure popular vote of the citizens. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember, the President holds executive power. In a Parliamentary system, the executive power is held by the Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister is not elected by the people. He gets his MP post by being elected by the people in his riding or district, and then if his party gets control of the Parliament, they pick the leader. The people don't vote on who the leader will be. So, the calls that it's "undemocratic" by people who live in countries that don't even vote for their Chief Executive, is rather ironic.

We also have a Senate as well as a House of Repreentatives. The House represents the people, and the Senate represents the States qua States (i.e. as separate legal entities). That's why the Senate has 100 members with 2 per state. California gets 2, Wyoming gets 2.

There is nothing particularly undemocratic in the US system compared other systems. The UK has a House of Lords, and Canada has its Senate. Most democratic countries have something less than a pure democracy, and not all leaders are popularly elected. So, if we were to be more like Europe's parliamentary democracies, we'd not popularly elect the President. The Congress would pick him. Would that be more democratic than what we have?

[tattuchu]

Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States
By Gabriel Sherman

"Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private...etc, etc"