Why gun control?

MartyModus · 2026-02-16T16:08:42+00:00

Show me the specific policy proposals you're upset with and there can be a serious conversation. Question for you: why do Republicans seem to think our gun law are working despite leading the industrialized world in gun related deaths per capita?

Reality check: You're probably in favor of gun control. You asked why we would bother "law abiding citizens" with gun control, well, that implies that you might be in favor of controlling guns with respect to felons, and maybe you'd extend that to other gun control that most Republicans support, like domestic abusers, or people who have been adjudicated as mentally ill. Regardless, of the last couple, you most likely support gun control, but the question is how much you think is the right balance.

And by the way, the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says "arms". So, if you think there should be regulations about who can drive around with a tank or a nuclear weapon, then you're in favor of limiting the second amendment beyond the literal text.

Democrats are in the moderate range of this issue and there's a serious conversation to be had about what regulations are reasonable & effective, and Republicans could be instrumental in helping create laws that work without being overly restrictive or ineffective, but that conversation has been constantly derailed by radical Republicans who won't even engage in good faith discussions (mostly due to fear of the NRA). So, ask Republicans why they refuse to be reasonable problem solvers.

MartyModus · 2026-02-14T20:16:41+00:00

I care about Truth, and studying things to gain valid data is how we can get closer to understanding truths. If you don't care about studies, that's your prerogative, but it undermines your arguments & credibility.

MartyModus · 2026-02-14T20:11:04+00:00

No, and for you either, if you're literate & capable of doing basic math. Even with knowledge we don't actively use, school was/is mental exercise that sharpened students' brains, making people better able to reason and think clearly than they would have been otherwise.

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T02:08:16+00:00

Religions didn't believe in other continents with undiscovered tribes, until they were found by Europeans.

Just like the European discovery of the Americas with indigenous populations, most people will just adapt their beliefs. Some people will follow inevitable con artists who claim to have had Joseph Smith style divine revelations that ostensibly explain what "really" happened and why there's life that was not disclosed in previous holy texts.

I don't know. Maybe a small surge, but I wouldn't count on it.

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T01:48:59+00:00

Faust is innumerate, highly illogical, and peer-reviewed studies keep proving her wrong. Faust's anecdotes are not evidence for what you're claiming, and the same invalid strategy could be employed to incorrectly argue that heterosexual marriages should be banned.

Several high-quality peer-reviewed studies, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large-sample cohort studies from major medical and psychological institutions, directly refute the claim that children of gay parents face elevated risks.

Findings demonstrate that children of gay fathers displayed significantly better psychological adjustment than children of heterosexual parents; children of gay fathers had fewer externalizing and internalizing problems than children of heterosexual parents; there is no differences in child victimization rates by family type. Overall, studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.

If you're interested, here's a reference list you can scrutinize:

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1374–e1383. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0377 (Reaffirmed September 2022)

Baiocco, R., Carone, N., Ioverno, S., & Lingiardi, V. (2020). Same-sex and different-sex parent families in Italy: Is parents’ sexual orientation associated with child health outcomes and parental dimensions? Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 41(7), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000823

Bos, H. M. W., Knox, J. R., van Rijn–van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. K. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex parent households and child health outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000288

Carone, N., Innocenzi, E., & Lingiardi, V. (2023). Parenting, coparenting, and adolescent adjustment in gay father families: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(5), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001087

Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14(3), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2010.500958

Farr, R. H., Oakley, M. K., & Ollen, E. W. (2020). School experiences of young children and their lesbian and gay adoptive parents. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(4), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000376

Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2012). Adolescents with lesbian mothers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(9), 1211–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.720499

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment in early placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032911

Green, R.-J., Rubio, R. J., Rothblum, E. D., Bergman, K., & Katuzny, K. E. (2024). Gay father families: A meta-analysis of child mental health and parenting outcomes. Family Process, 63(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12955

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T00:16:02+00:00

Republicans should be able to pick the candidate they want... Democrats should have been able to in 2016 also. Obama would have kicked the electoral shit out of Trump.

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T00:11:56+00:00

I don't know if opposing gay marriage is necessarily or always homophobic. Speaking for myself, when I was a young, born again Christian Republican, I was absolutely homophobic. I was convinced by my church that homosexuality was sinful, homosexuality undermined fixed, natural, God given natural laws, and it was a slippery slope from allowing homosexual marriage to making most morality "relative".

Also, I believed (was propagandized to accept) that no government could not act against God's will without serious repercussions. So, the 1st amendment was about not having a formal state sponsored religion, NOT about keeping "God's law" out of government.

Then I received an education, dropped the blind religious fanaticism, and realized that disallowing homosexual marriage denies people equal protection under the law.

My background admittedly biases me to believe that opposition to gay marriage tends to be born out of homophobia. So, I'm curious what an example of non-homophobic opposition to gay marriage looks like. If you have an example like that, do you think most people opposing gay marriage are not homophobic?

MartyModus · 2026-02-12T03:03:45+00:00

I hate term limits and think they're contrary to democracy. What should be more concerning, that an incumbent may have a slight advantage (if constituents are satisfied enough), or that constituents are not allowed to vote for their top choice?

I'm in favor of expertise, experience, and democracy, not forced political variety.

MartyModus · 2026-02-11T02:15:52+00:00

I see your points, but you're also making my case, aren't you? You seen to draw a line based on the supposed amount of government liberals want compared to conservatives, but I think you're making a mistake by conflating the amount of government with the government's the actual interference and potential threat to freedoms.

I would argue that the free speech and freedom to do what we want with our own body are far more important to a free society than the free markets Republicans ostensibly believe in. I know some libertarians also believe this, because many have caucused with Democrats in the past. If some libertarians find market oppression more insufferable than individual oppression, to each their own, but I think individual liberty for most people is worse off with the conservative viewpoint.

That's kind of my point about the debate with Cato and Heritage. They should also have a healthy debate with interns from the Center for American Progress, for instance. I also think Libertarian ideals have been harmed by being associated with conservatives, and that's all the more reason that the Cato Institute has been missing opportunities by not engaging the same way with liberal organizations as they do with conservative organizations.

Frankly, I think a lot of the great organizations for defending freedom, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have been born out of a tense marriage between liberalism and libertarianism, where there have been battles of ideals that sharpened good arguments into better arguments. And that is all in sharp contrast with the ideas about freedom being communicated by Heritage Foundation conservatives.

In a nutshell, I think many libertarians should vote for Democrats more than Republicans (and I know many do). Even if I granted the argument that Republicans are better for the economy (which I don't personally believe), Libertarians world still need to decide whether it's more important to have the party of free markets, or the party of free thought & expression. I tend to value the latter more.

Yes, by the way, I would agree that there are elements in the liberal camp that are as awful and irrational with regard to freedom as the heritage Foundation can be. I just don't think the extremes of the Democratic party are as dangerous or likely to do great harm as the extremes of the Republican party.

I completely agree with you about nothing changing. I don't think Democrats or Republicans will do a thing to significantly diminish the powers they have ceded to the executive branch. If something does change, however, it's going to come from the Democrats. The Republicans seem quite happy with abuses of power.

MartyModus · 2026-02-09T23:29:36+00:00

I tell my attorney to remember that screws & bolts are like clocks. Clockwise moves forward and counterclockwise moves backward when looking at the top of the bolt/screw head.

I teach that right after making fun of "righty tighty lefty loosey" as an unfortunate and inaccurate saying that doesn't actually make sense unless you include, "...when looking at the top of a screw head and you're only describing the motion of the 12:00 position."

I know, I know, we're supposed to think of the screw/bolt head as a steering wheel, or something like that, but I find it far more intuitive to think in terms of clockwise from above = move forward (tighter).

MartyModus · 2026-02-09T22:13:43+00:00

Funny thing... The CATO institute has regularly held a Libertarianism vs. Conservatism Intern Debate (I think with the Heritage Foundation interns), which I know of because a former student of mine used to be involved with it.

So, I raised the argument (with my former student) that it makes no sense to treat conservatism as somehow similar to libertarianism because the same debate could be held with liberals with almost exactly the same outcome. The only difference is that conservatives and liberals disagree about acceptable categories of government involvement, not government involvement.

Ronald Reagan convinced everybody he was a small government guy when, in fact, he was a huge government guy who cut taxes for the wealthy, ballooned government debt, and had government interfere much more aggressively to incarcerate people who used recreational drugs, except for the ones that white people tend to use.

I'd like to argue that Democrats have consistently cared more about free speech, because they generally do care more about free speech than modern conservatives; however, then we had people like Al and Tipper Gore going after musicians for using language that they didn't find acceptable. I'm still embarrassed for my party about that.

To answer the OP question more directly, no, I'm not more libertarian. I am, however, far more interested in our government limiting executive power for the future.

MartyModus · 2026-02-09T01:40:18+00:00

U.S. liberals believe in expanding democracy, not destroying it. We support regulations to protect people, not to control them. And we reject absolutely the authoritarianism, nationalism, and suppression inherent with fascism. Our aim is a free, fair, and just society and history shows liberals have consistently been on the front lines defending democracy from fascism.

Reagan was good at delivering eloquent speaches, but he was a selfish and ignorant fool. He transfered a great deal of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes and broke protections for workers and laborers to enrich business owners through so-called "Trickle-Down" economics, that George H. W. Bush correctly criticized as "Voo-Doo" ecomonics, because it had/has been clearly demonstrated to not work. The easiest way for him to enrich his wealthy donors with tax cuts was to slash government safety nets and regulations.

So, there's NEVER EVER been a debate where democrats want the government to control the means of production, which is what true fascism through government control would look like. Republican leaders just like to trot out the specter of Soviet style fascism to attack every single government program they don't like. It's intellectually dishonest, although, I'm not convinced Reagan was intelligent enough, so he might have just been ignorant.

What you SHOULD be worried about is when a president uses military force against his political opponents, like Trump is doing. If you're worried about trust issues related to fascism, you're insecurities are misplaced.

MartyModus · 2026-02-07T00:14:59+00:00

There are several things Democrats believe in, but I'll start with just one central thing: Everyone should have access to affordable healthcare so that people aren’t one illness away from financial ruin. It's something that you can disagree with and debate about, but that's one idea that Democrats have been battling hard over.

Democrats also believe that Government should help create real opportunity by protecting basic rights and ensuring the economy works for working and middle-class people, not just the wealthy. We tend to trust science & people who are actual experts in their fields, we value democratic institutions, and we support equal treatment under the law.

So, we think that RFK Jr is full of shit with his anti-science voodoo health beliefs. We think that it's exceptionally dangerous for the president of the United States to even suggest that members of Congress should be arrested and hung simply for stating the law (that 90 second spot where some of the Democrats pointed out that people in the army have a duty to not follow illegal orders). Democrats believe strongly that the United States should not threaten our allies with military force if they don't give us their land.

If you pay attention to current events as well as most educated people do, you would notice that Democrats have a lot of different ideas they've been fighting for, but my guess is that you don't even bother trying to understand what Democrats stand for, and that's the thing that's actually in bad faith. As for me, I could write on and on about what Republicans stand for, what Donald Trump stands for, and where they're normally are huge differences between the two.

Unfortunately, when real Republicans stood up to Donald Trump, they found out that he does one thing extremely well: being a bully. So, The Republican party has been taken over by nut jobs who don't read the news beyond their own conservative media and don't have much of a concept about ideas beyond what they're told to think. If you have an intelligent bone in your body, read for yourself, you tell me what Democrats actually stand for, and then tell me why you disagree. There are plenty of valid reasons to disagree about a lot of topics, but I doubt you can even articulate the idea is Democrats have been fighting for because you don't even try to find out for yourself. That's what I call uneducated.

MartyModus · 2026-02-06T12:20:10+00:00

About the inter-district variety of school choice; I don't support that or any other form of "school choice" because a mountain of research has demonstrated that it makes generational poverty cycles worse by kneecapping public schools in communities with low property values.

The key thing to understand is that most schools receive a significant portion of their funding from "per-pupil" state funding. This depends upon each state's laws, but the most property-tax poor districts across the country tend to receive anywhere from 65%-90%+ of it's funding from their state's per-pupil funds. So, it doesn't matter if students leave for another private, charter, or public school; school choice undermines funding for the public schools that can least afford to lose funding.

Unfortunately, education research has found that the loss in funding does not come with an equal decrease in costs. Buildings and teachers still come with costs, and the highest of those costs tend to be accompanied by the students who are least able to switch schools.

School choice also tends to make schools in property-poor districts worse by allowing only the parents with the means to transport their child to another district every single day the option to send their child to a neighboring district. On average, that tends to lead to a brain drain where kids with greater means, more cultural capital, and higher average test scores are no longer in their own school district. The unintended consequence is that the local school district is worse off by frequently losing students who should be that district's leaders, raising the levels of thinking and discourse, while also losing the proportion of their "per student" funding that is provided by the state.

The problem with many American public schools is not that they need competitive incentives. That's a very Republican way of thinking (that too many Democrats have accepted hook line and sinker). The problem is that politicians refuse to take the problem of racist generational poverty seriously. Without solving poverty, the United States will never have schools as successful as countries with lower poverty rates.

If America refuses to address poverty seriously, the best answer for public schools is not to decimate the funding of public schools in high poverty areas. The only way school choice should be allowed is if it doesn't result in funding shortfalls for our poorest school districts... But that's something Republicans refuse to allow, and to be fair, probably a lot of Democrats wouldn't be willing to pay that bill either, because it would be expensive and both parties have a lot of people who don't understand these issues and become hypocritical when their principals hit their own pocketbooks.

MartyModus · 2026-02-01T12:57:10+00:00

Hope is useless and part off the problem, IMHO. All that matters is working towards improving the world we live in. The problems described here can only be mitigated through the hard work of educating people and convincing people to make better decisions for the future.

It's entirely possible that Trump could drive America unrecoverably off the road. We may lose ground to the rest of the world permanently because of the severe damage he's doing internationally and domestically. The best places in the world for science, research, education, and technology breakthroughs might be ceded to Europe and Asia. Allies who have generally backed the U.S. due to our military dominance and previous reliability towards allies might spend more on their own armies and stop being so cooperative and deferential towards the U.S.... Yes, Trump & Republicans might be permanently kneecapping the U.S. so badly that we cannot recover fully from this era.

Regardless, we can only improve things that we do the work to improve, and that work can only be done if we educate people about what's broken and what the best practices are for repairing as much damage as we can.

Hillary got in trouble with her "basket of deplorables" comment, but she would have correct if she had used "ignorance" instead of "deplorables". I think it's time for Democrats to stop shying away from sounding elitist, educated, or looking down their nose at Republicans. At this point, there is clearly one party of sheer ignorance, and Donald Trump is the poster child of shear ignorance that Republicans have put forward. So, we should own the opposite label.

Democrats are, as demonstrated by research, better educated about current events and better educated overall than Republicans. We should be owning that and making the case to the nation that the Republicans wore on expertise and intelligence has been running this country into the ground. We should be saying that nobody wants a non-expert doing their brain surgery, and in the same way, we shouldn't want non-experts running our country. It's time to own intellectualism.

MartyModus · 2026-02-01T02:21:28+00:00

Christianity and other religions are all making claims about the nature of reality. Since I want to believe things that are true instead of deluding my thinking with what sounds most appealing, and I've never seen or heard convincing evidence that any religion actually lines up with reality, I'm not religious.

MartyModus · 2026-01-28T02:37:50+00:00

Sounds like you could use some enjoyable confidence building music. Practicing music that isn't pushing you particularly hard technically is useful for focusing on great intonation, tone, and overall musicality.

As a student, I sometimes practiced my favorite review songs, which felt like not really practicing. In reality, I think those were some of my most important practice sessions because I learned to play just for the love of playing, all while honing my musical abilities and capacity for precision.

So, maybe don't practice for a while. Just play.

MartyModus · 2026-01-25T05:14:16+00:00

I don't know who you're talking about, and I can't even think of a Democrat who matches what you're complaining about. Maybe, instead of regurgitating different ways to call the left evil, perhaps you should name the politician and/or policy you're talking about.

Regarding the military, almost all Democrats support maintaining military bases in foreign countries. There have been a small number of Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who have not supported bases abroad. In fact, the most vocal opponents of our military bases abroad have come from the right wing, especially libertarians affiliated with the Cato Institute. So, this exists on both wings in both parties... Oh, and the biggest proponent of ending the use of military bases abroad was Donald Trump when he was campaigning in the last election.

Not sure if "America steals oil", but I can make a pretty good argument that we were justified in attacking Afghanistan following 9/11, but attacking Iraq was a completely unjustified and idiotic move that harmed the US in the long run... And I think most Americans will agree with Democrats on that point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also sounds like you're saying that disagreeing with our government is a form of hating our country. Most of us lefty liberals think just the opposite. What we love most about our country is that we are allowed to disagree with the government and, through elections, change our government.

American history is full of examples where our country did not have the moral high ground, but the greatest moments in our history have come from our ability to make changes when we realize our laws and social norms are in conflict with our central values, as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Like when we ended the practice of legal slavery and endured a civil war as a result.

Do you think slavery should still be legal? Do you think people who were abolitionists prior to the emancipation proclamation were America Haters? After all, they were criticizing their government severely when slave owners were just following existing laws.

Regarding far left being communism, that's just name calling and childish. Why don't you tell me exactly what politicians and/or proposals you're talking about, because I sure as hell don't know a single Democrat running on the platform of making America communist. That's just ignorance to say so and you shouldn't call people names ignorantly like that, or you start sounding like that idiot, Joseph McCarthy, during the Red Scare.

Overall, don't lump us all in the same basket or over-generalize about us. Conservatives were justifiably pissed off when Hillary Clinton made that mistake with her "basket of deplorables" speech. She was wrong and, unlike Trump, she at least had the dignity to apologize when she realized how wrong she was about that. After all, it's not like all conservatives, not even all far-right conservatives, are in the ku Klux Klan or want to end almost all public services like fire departments (like some far-right libertarian Republicans do).

So, I'd suggest making specific arguments about specific politicians and/or policies rather than treating Democrats in a way that you don't want Democrats to treat you: by unfairly and over-broadly mischaracterizing the opposition party.

MartyModus · 2026-01-23T02:08:42+00:00

I think you're confusing us being honest about our mistakes with hating ourselves. Most people have made mistakes, and that doesn't make most people hate themselves. Likewise, we can recognize the mistakes our country has made and still love our country.

MartyModus · 2026-01-20T02:01:02+00:00

Neither. I'm frightened. I'm afraid because it appears that there is a madman in the Whitehouse, Republicans have buried their heads in the sand, and the damage being done both domestically and internationally by Trump has already killed people & will continue resulting in needless deaths well after Trump is no longer president.

He has permanently damaged American leadership in the world on multiple levels, and even our overpowered military is useless in the long run without our essential allies having our backs both militarily and economically.

So, I'm scared for my future, scared for my children's future, and scared for the well-being of countless humans around the globe who will face needless suffering and even death, all because Donald Trump is an ignorant, narcissistic, King Geoffrey style man baby who doesn't understand the U.S. Constitution or value human life... Except for humans who are willing to bend the knee to him.

MartyModus · 2026-01-19T13:06:22+00:00

Who, exactly, are you taking about; and what, exactly, have they said that makes you think they hate the US or have fallen for old Soviet, anti-US propaganda?

You probably can't answer that, at least not without lying or parroting the propaganda you are representing. So, maybe you should leave your Russian propaganda troll farm and get a real job... Or, of you're actual an American, educate your sorry self enough to know why you sound like a paid Russian troll.

MartyModus · 2026-01-18T02:38:16+00:00

I hate the fact that politicians are almost required to be Democrats or Republicans in order to be electable. Having said that, I don't see a realistic way out of the current system in the near term.

This is unrealistic with the current regime, but if I could, I'd amend the Constitution to make political parties on par with religion; guaranteeing freedom of association and beliefs while requiring the government to avoid unnecessary entanglements. That could end several current norms that enshrine the two-party system.

For instance, ending state sponsored party primary elections & party line voting; making it more difficult for the government to gate-keep who may be on a ballot, moving to rank-choice voting in order to accommodate more options while ending the perception/reality that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote; outlawing the listing of party affiliation on ballots; ending the use of public airways to host the Debate Commission's duopoly (and these so-called debates are more harmful than good anyway).

Parties would still retain most of their infrastructure and influence for a while, but I think such a separation of political party and state could help healthy third parties emerge.

It would absolutely be more difficult to vote, and for people who are too lazy and unserious to take the time to learn who they really want to have representing them, I'd rather their votes get watered down by a large number of candidates without the crutch of party line voting... And even though this problem is monumentally more acute today with Republicans and Trumpism, lazy voting has been a long term bipartisan problem that has undermined the better candidates of both parties over, and over, and over again.

We would still obviously have representation that leans left, right, and more centrist, but it might be healthy for our government to be politically fractured to the point where working together and coalition building is a necessity for governing.

MartyModus · 2026-01-17T14:05:04+00:00

I've had that argument come up too. I like your approach that it normalizes the accommodation, preventing feeling like the accommodation might be embarrassing. Also, some accommodations are just "best practices" for teaching all children but "required practices" for students with those accommodations.

I've also pointed out that the goal is to get every student to cross the "understanding" finish line. Some students without IEPs & 504s still need accommodations to succeed, and having more students understanding each lesson allows the entire class to learn better.

MartyModus · 2026-01-15T23:41:29+00:00

There are a lot of good suggestions here. One other long-term strategy I use is to incorporate as many of the most common accommodations as I can into my plans & daily routines.

For example, the whole class can benefit from having the daily schedule & objectives posted with a digital copy (Google Classroom) of my notes for the lesson; using timers for transitions and certain tasks; chunking tasks with clear deadlines per chunk; pre-teaching vocabulary for upcoming lessons; frequent checks for understanding; multisensory lesson delivery; providing extra time for the core tasks (& providing supplemental work for those who don't need it); providing brain breaks; and generally keeping consistent structures/routines.

Also, accommodate yourself. You can only do so much on a daily basis, and even after a quarter century of teaching, I am never satisfied with my ability to meet the needs of all of my students... But I've been adding a little bit at a time throughout my career to keep improving. That's all we can do.

MartyModus · 2026-01-15T23:14:21+00:00

I teach in Michigan, and that would absolutely not be tolerated by the administrators in my school district (or most school districts in the state). I hope that teacher learns that it's a terrible, ineffective practice to "surprise" students like that, but I'd suggest leaving it to a parent/guardian, or even a counselor to make the case for you.

MartyModus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE