US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[TakingBackSunday]

Jesus christ

[Nola]

I ain’t touching a Vox link on gun propaganda control ever again.

 Doesn't change or have any bearing on the underlying research referenced.

[Himu]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/liberals-are-embracing-the-politics-of-fear-thats-scary.html

[Himu]

“To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)”

The founding fathers were clear.

Liberals harping on “militia” is straight balls.

You can cherry pick things from history all day Cindi, what ultimately matters is how the court interprets things.


----------------


For instance, when Alexander Hamilton was talking about it in the Federalist papers, he referred to it being impractical to train the "people at large" to a level of "tolerable expertness," saying that the most that could be "reasonably be aimed at" was "to have them properly armed and equipped" (and that even for that it would be "necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"). He went on to say:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need."

He also said "the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS" (his caps, not mine).

He explicitly argued that it wouldn't be practical for the people as a whole to be the militia, and said that it would have to be a "select corps of moderate extent" with officers appointed by the States.

---------------------

But what you will fail to find in the federal supreme court is any mention of the interpretation put out prior to Heller vs DC about the amendment being an explicit individual right to bear arms. And that largely has to do with how uncontroversial the interpretation of the amendment as being about militias was until the NRA(and black panthers) decided to try and re-interpret it as an individual right.

Not bad. I’ll look into it. But why stop at Alexander Hamilton if you said it only mattered what court says and the court has deemed that it’s for individual rights? Is this not a contradiction of terms?

[Phoenix Dark]

Source PD:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Your link literally says gun crime went down, despite your claim that it did not. You're not even reading the sources you post. You're probably googling "pro gun reddit" and blindly posting what you find after skimming a couple paragraphs.

The article also points out that a study disputes whether the law itself played a role in the decline, to be fair. A comprehensive look at the ban would suggest that *both sides* (one of your favorite phrases) have been guilty of cherry picking data on the issue. Crime fell after the bill was passed, there's no question about it. But how much credit goes to the law is highly disputed.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

I have said multiple times I don't support banning specific guns. I've also said multiple times that hand gun crime is higher, but no one ever talks about banning hand guns; CNN didn't even bring it up last night, from my understanding. There are a lot of different ways to reduce gun crime. The funny thing is:

1. None of them involve banning the 2A
2. Nearly all of them are opposed by the NRA

In short, gun advocates have created a fantasy world wherein The State is coming for their guns, and how it's not gonna work because xzy. Meanwhile they have little to say about actual policies that would reduce gun violence. Comprehensive background checks, perhaps including a mental health test. I'm not going to wade into the views expressed in the other thread but it's a fact that people who have been suicidal recently wouldn't qualify for gun ownership under such a system. A renewed focus on shutting down gun trafficking is another key issue. Conservatives love bringing up Chicago while ignoring the fact that most guns in Chicago illegally come from Indiana and other states/areas with lax or no gun control. Going after straw purchases and closing gun show loopholes makes sense too.

None of that even comes close to repealing the 2A. Yet all of of it is or has been opposed by the NRA, despite what Dana said last night. I'm not sure I've even seen you express views on any of that...because you're too busy waging war against strawmen. And frankly, because you don't seem to have a decent grasp of the issue anyway.

[sphagnum]

Who cares about the correct interpretation of some dusty old bourgeois document when the world has since then been enlightened by the glorious perfection of the 1976 constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania?

[TakingBackSunday]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/liberals-are-embracing-the-politics-of-fear-thats-scary.html

Get the fuck out of here.  I'm not going to feel sorry for Rubio and I'm happy these assholes are being put on blast

[Himu]

Source PD:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Your link literally says gun crime went down, despite your claim that it did not. You're not even reading the sources you post. You're probably googling "pro gun reddit" and blindly posting what you find after skimming a couple paragraphs.

The article also points out that a study disputes whether the law itself played a role in the decline, to be fair. A comprehensive look at the ban would suggest that *both sides* (one of your favorite phrases) have been guilty of cherry picking data on the issue. Crime fell after the bill was passed, there's no question about it. But how much credit goes to the law is highly disputed.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

I have said multiple times I don't support banning specific guns. I've also said multiple times that hand gun crime is higher, but no one ever talks about banning hand guns; CNN didn't even bring it up last night, from my understanding. There are a lot of different ways to reduce gun crime. The funny thing is:

1. None of them involve banning the 2A
2. Nearly all of them are opposed by the NRA

In short, gun advocates have created a fantasy world wherein The State is coming for their guns, and how it's not gonna work because xzy. Meanwhile they have little to say about actual policies that would reduce gun violence. Comprehensive background checks, perhaps including a mental health test. I'm not going to wade into the views expressed in the other thread but it's a fact that people who have been suicidal recently wouldn't qualify for gun ownership under such a system. A renewed focus on shutting down gun trafficking is another key issue. Conservatives love bringing up Chicago while ignoring the fact that most guns in Chicago illegally come from Indiana and other states/areas with lax or no gun control. Going after straw purchases and closing gun show loopholes makes sense too.

None of that even comes close to repealing the 2A. Yet all of of it is or has been opposed by the NRA, despite what Dana said last night. I'm not sure I've even seen you express views on any of that...because you're too busy waging war against strawmen. And frankly, because you don't seem to have a decent grasp of the issue anyway.

I’ve read it. Where does it say that?

It says gun crime has lowered, yes. But it has the caveat of saying “since 1993” which basically comes out to be,”gun crime has gone down since 1993....even after the assault weapon ban was lifted.”

So clarify what you mean. Do you mean gun crime went down only during the period of the ban or are you also including after the ban? Because news flash, there’s more and more “assault” rifles sold and put out on market (though there’s been a lull since Trump took office) and DESPITE that gun ownership is growing and spiking in record numbers gun crime continues to be lowered! So which is it?

It flat out says this:

Most Americans do not know that gun homicides have decreased by 49 percent since 1993 as violent crime also fell

A Pew survey conducted after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., found that 56 percent of Americans believed wrongly that the rate of gun crime was higher than it was 20 years ago.

DESPITE you saying this:

Gun crime went down during the ban too, btw, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence right.

Your statement basically implies it was only the ban that made gun crime go down. But you also ignore that gun crime lowered even after the ban was rescinded! So which is it?

[Mandark]

Gun crime did not go down under the ban. Your data is bad.

This is flat out wrong.

[sphagnum]

You know, when I was still a conservative teenager I got sent to some "youth leadership conference" in DC because my history teacher recommended me and I had high grades. I had to wear a suit the whole time and I hated it. I also met some guy who most definitely is a /pol/ poster now because he wouldn't stop trying to convince girls to look at goatse and lemon party and he liked anime.  But I got paired with this cute Republican girl from Virginia in a debate we had to do on gun control and my side got the "argue in favor of not banning guns" task and my argument was literally "Because baseball bats are also weapons and banning those would be stupid" and when I said that the conservative students cheered and we won the debate.

This sounds like thingsthatneverhappened.txt but here's the twist: I still struck out with the girl. And that's how you know it's real.

[Nola]

Not bad. I’ll look into it. But why stop at Alexander Hamilton if you said it only mattered what court says and the court has deemed that it’s for individual rights? Is this not a contradiction of terms?

The point was more on how the founders were not a monolith, and while you can find some things to bend yourself into thinking some of them take a strict individual interpretation, there really isn't a whole lot of that. If you look through the rest of the federalist papers like you sort of suggested, you will find a lot of talk about militias, not much, if any talk I have found explicitly supporting the Heller court interpretation the NRA champions.

However, the point I was also making before that, is that historically, the court has not really taken the interpretation that many on the right claim as their Trump card on gun rights, that individual overriding interpretation. That is really a very new phenomena, thanks to that 5-4 ruling in 2008. Prior to that, if you look at cases preceding it, about 95% of cases according to Adam Winkler's research for his book on the history of the second amendment ruled in favor of gun control laws when those cases were heard(which I think is a really good primer if you ever want to get away from these hyper partisan confirmation bias fights). And no federal Supreme Court ruling took that personal rights interpretation. That interpretation, despite confidence and assertion to the contrary, is not all that ironclad, either in terms of its likelihood to remain the default in the courts, or in terms of the weight of its underlying argument.

[Himu]

What strawmen am I arguing?

Here are FACTS:

Gun crime has lowered as well as regular crime.
Mass shootings are a blip.
Most gun deaths are suicides.
Most gun homicides are in the hood in specific concentrated areas.
Assault weapon ban basically did about jack shit and Columbine even happened under its watch.
Hammers kill more people than “assault” rifles.
Most gun deaths are hand guns.
Despite record gun sales, and no assault weapon ban, gun crime still lowers.

What point were you trying to make again?

So do I know the issue PD.

[Phoenix Dark]

Gun crime did not go down under the ban. Your data is bad.

This is flat out wrong.

This is exactly what I was referring to Cindy. You came out the gate making an inaccurate statement, which suggested to me that you didn't read the article. Because that's what people who bullshit tend to do. And I've been in those shoes before. Let us not forget my days of still being kind religious, half assedly defending myself by posting shit out of context or not reading articles I thought defended my points.

I didn't say only the ban made crime go down. If I insinuated it...I will clarify that wasn't my point. A clear difference from you outright making a blatantly false statement. And as I said before, I do not support a ban.

But notice, this is now like day 3 or 4 of you engaging on this issue without discussing any areas of the topic you agree or disagree on beyond Good Guy With a Gun fantasies and "liberals want to take your guns away" ducktales. What are your positions on background checks? What are your positions on gun trafficking? What are your positions on the ATF?

You seem frustrated that you can't find the stereotypical liberals you love complaining about in this thread. No one has called you a Nazi and the majority of us aren't calling for repealing the 2A or taking people's guns. And you clearly don't know how to react to that. You shat on Rubio last night...but you're sounding a lot like him, malfunctioning when your talking points don't work.

 

[Himu]

Gun crime did not go down under the ban. Your data is bad.

This is flat out wrong.

I’ll concede that it is. I thought he meant something else. My bad. I’ve since corrected his point.

“found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf



I mean, when you look at Mexico it makes sense...

[Himu]

But notice, this is now like day 3 or 4 of you engaging on this issue without discussing any areas of the topic you agree or disagree on beyond Good Guy With a Gun fantasies and "liberals want to take your guns away" ducktales. What are your positions on background checks? What are your positions on gun trafficking? What are your positions on the ATF?

Let’s be reality.

You haven’t asked.

Mandark and others are saying I want to wage a war with the federal government! You haven’t treated my position with respect. It has been outright disdain and mockery. Have you PERSONALLY asked me? No you fucking haven’t.

And I’m not frustrated no one has called me Nazi. I’m relieved actually.

[thehunter116]

https://twitter.com/PoliticusSarah/status/966737377506091009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%23966737377506091009

 

[etiolate]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-cultural-roots-of-crime/487583/

Rises in violent crime have much more to do with migrations of high-crime cultures, especially to locations in which governments, particularly crime-control agents, are weak. Declines are more likely when crime controls are strong, and there are no migrations or demographic changes associated with crime rises.



In the middle 1990s, the sudden end of the crack cocaine era set off the most recent crime trough. Crack was a youth contagion, a massive copying phenomenon, that ended as suddenly as it had begun. It ended because law enforcement clamped down on drug violators and drug-gang distributors, because the drugs were extremely destructive to the health and well-being of the users, and, mainly, because crack suddenly became uncool—a positive contagion. But the entire crack crime rise, from roughly 1987 to 1992, was a surprise in that violent crime had begun to fall in the early 1980s when the baby boom generation started aging out of violence. Only in the late 80s, when the boomer offspring began using crack, did crime rise once again. This surge lasted but six years, whereupon the decline resumed

Trying to relate long standing patterns to the assault ban is rather frail. Less guns is likely good, especially within high density, but the rifle ban is more a manufactured answer than a problem solver. The issue is much larger. Gun regulation and background checks can certainly help, but taking the issue seriously doesn't make me start demanding a return of the rifle ban. Seems much deeper than that.

And gun crime arguments after this topic was flared up off a mass shooting seems iffy. If you're looking to curtail violent crime and posing some gun regulations as part of the problem solving then okay. If you look at a mass killing and want to use it to push legislation as if it has a large impact on stopping mass killings then you're missing a large part of the picture.

[thehunter116]

One thing to consider on the identity politics front is ideology and beliefs.

Being on liberal/leftist side all my life I know that they don’t value free speech. I do. They don’t think people like Shapiro should speak on campuses? I do. The lefts penchant for shielding themselves from people like that has created a situation where they are simply incpabale of debating them. They don’t see the point in debating someone with such “hateful” views. I find that to be the definition of weakness. I do not value weakness. The liberals/leftists I know don’t want others who disagree with them on things to speak out so they call people one word names like racist, transphobe. In the liberal community, have one opinion that goes against their values and they dehumanize you, kick you out of the club. They don’t want to hear it. But since election 2016 when realizing I don’t have any conservative friends for exactly those reasons I described, I started to slowly befriend conservatives - even Trump voters. I found that they tend to respect you and still want to associate with you even if you don’t agree. In fact many valued disagreements because they had learned something. Far different than my liberal/leftist friends or even leftist companies such as Google.

I value free speech and the left just doesn’t. They say they do, but I think they need to do some soul searching. And if they’re acting the way they are NOW, where they think violence is justified just because someone says something they don’t like? Whose to say how they'll act when they finally implement socialism? Gulags sure sounds fun.

You start to realize that there’s a clear separation between party and ideology.

Conservatism != Republican. One major problem is that the modern Republican Party is even tied to conservatism. They’re way past that at this point.

However, when one has certain values or beliefs you might think they’re worth fighting for more than something else.

I believe abortion is the killing of a human being. I won’t bring up the soul argument. You can argue that it wasn’t a baby. Fine. But it still has human DNA. And you killed it. Some Democratic leaders such as Schultz saying it’s okay to abort a 7 pound baby. I was born 2 pounds. I was born a month before my due date. I had complications. What if one of those babies aborted was me? I value a pro-life stance and I’ve mostly kept quiet on it. Those are my values.

I believe in personal liberty to own a firearm. I believe the second amendment grants citizens the ability to bear arms in case the state grows tyrannical. The gun is tied to American culture like how the katana is tied to Japanese culture - our cultures were shaped by these weapons. While guns were used to kill natives in genocide, they were also given to escaped slaves to fight for their freedom. Guns are empowerment.

I believe these things to be true. They are also things the left are vehemently against.

As a minority, you're now between a rock and a hard place. Choose your values or choose yourself. I believe my values will lead to a better America so I choose that. Maybe I changed or it is the left that changed. But they no longer are my values. The last year has seen to that.

But again, to reiterate, ideology != party. Conflating conservatism with being Republican is a part of the problem. Parties force blind allegiance. Ideology doesn’t. However, at this point the Republican Party is the closest to my ideals. Like I said, I’m going independent. I’ll still be voting for democrats that are worthy.

I’m sick of feeling helpless. Politics matter more than ever in America. I agree with everyone that says the Republican Party needs work on minority outreach. Which is why I’m going to find a way to stop feeling helpless. I’m studying for the GRE’s and applying to grad school to major in political science. My main concern? Advancement of black people. My top picks are Howard and UT. I will have more power if I am able to analyze politics beyond basic consumption of news, voting, and bitching. Hopefully after the last few years others feel similar.

 

I mean there's just so much to unpack here but lol.

[Mandark]

Mandark and others are saying I want to wage a war with the federal government! You haven’t treated my position with respect. It has been outright disdain and mockery.

You said multiple times you want guns to protect yourself the state, and you've cited America's post-WW2 wars to say this would be viable. I've asked you to clarify several times and you haven't.

As for the disdain, do you even read your own posts? You can come out swinging or you can complain about tone but please pick one.

[agrajag]

Let's hear your suggestions, Etiolate

[Mandark]

I think thehunter116 is probably the worst poster on this board.

[thehunter116]

I think thehunter116 is probably the worst poster on this board.

Why?

Because I mostly post lol and emotes?

[Mandark]

Mostly it's the quoting, I'd say.

[thehunter116]

Mostly it's the quoting, I'd say.

Well fuck me didn't see that one coming.

[etiolate]

My suggestion with these type of things is to remove it from public noise. Get a group of intelligent people which includes those normally kicked out by the gatekeeper types. Get solid info all around and find a solution that works the best with little unintended consequence possibilities.

It is very much concentrated among men of a certain age group. More opportunity, less desperation and less chance for futile and impotent competition. Connect all the background check databases so you can't state-hop out of the system.  Reduce the type of weaponry that can "spray" bullets with ease. Smart gun regulation. Cindi is right. Columbine happened with sawed off shotguns and handguns.

Another part of the problem is media attention. The fame-seeking theory on mass killings seems to have weight. However, the press is free to cover as they wish. Hopefully making people more aware of the ego-driven fame seeking might change how the press covers these stories. The conversation has to get smarter, so that's why you want it out of the hands of soundbite traffic driven media and the people that mass consume that shit.

It will be difficult and take the best people, but it should be done in a comprehensive manner.

[Cerveza mas fina]

If ending the viability of something that has human DNA qualifies as an abortion, I have performed like a million abortions today alone

Also contraception is murder

[I'm a Puppy!]

For TVC

[Phoenix Dark]

But notice, this is now like day 3 or 4 of you engaging on this issue without discussing any areas of the topic you agree or disagree on beyond Good Guy With a Gun fantasies and "liberals want to take your guns away" ducktales. What are your positions on background checks? What are your positions on gun trafficking? What are your positions on the ATF?

Let’s be reality.

You haven’t asked.

Mandark and others are saying I want to wage a war with the federal government! You haven’t treated my position with respect. It has been outright disdain and mockery. Have you PERSONALLY asked me? No you fucking haven’t.

And I’m not frustrated no one has called me Nazi. I’m relieved actually.

I've treated some of your positions with the respect they deserve: next to none, because Good Guy With A Gun fantasies and State Tyranny conspiracies don't deserve to be taken seriously. Some of your other positions I have taken seriously, and some I've dismissed because you're trolling.

I've now asked you multiple times in two threads about those issues, and once again you've ignored the questions. Which, again, suggests to me that you aren't really here to talk about the issue and instead are doing what the far right and NRA members typically do: equate all "gun control" with gun confiscation/2A repeal. IE, the strawmen I referred to. Dana put on quite a show last night and lied about the NRA's positions multiple times. They don't really support any of the stuff I mentioned. Gun hysteria thrives off creating a sense that at any moment your "rights" can be taken away by the state. It is a massive machine built on fear and conspiracy theories. And frankly I can't really respect the intellect of anyone who peddles it.

[Brehvolution]

Cindi evolved into jaydub

Jaydub wouldn't be caught near a women's bathroom.

[agrajag]

Who are these intelligent men? Who gets to appoint them?

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm not gonna lie Etoilet, I'm kinda disappointed you have blessed us with your all powerful wisdom only to basically say "create a commission and study the issue" like a...dare I say...politician. 

But overall I largely agree about opportunities, background check databases, etc.

[Nola]

Even though Cindi respectfully gave me all of two minutes of consideration for my post earlier, I'll reiterate this point, as far as evidence, we have plenty, from plenty of sources, so we don't need to dwell on just one study, and as far as creating some sort of conclusion about the compendium of research we have, I think this is about the best I can find. Which is what was referenced in that link:

Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations.

source

They also mention this ongoing project at Harvard that has looked at gun violence, and made similar conclusions.

They make note of the limitations of the findings, and where gaps in knowledge could improve things in the future, but the findings they have made are fairly notable.

So we know that overall gun control can and does often work at achieving its stated goals, and that higher gun control on the individual, state, and national level tends to correlate with lower per capita gun deaths. As a side note, there is quite a lot of support for the gun control PD just got done mentioning in this first study, and unless someone has evidence as strong as this with some different conclusions, I don't know why these should be doubted or substituted for other, less comprehensive research?

I'm all for more knowledge being attained, so sign me up for etiolate's suggestion, just see if Cindi can talk to her NRA about getting that ban on CDC research lifted. Since that pot of data, and a political mandate to do it, would be incredibly valuable in further studying this issue.

[etiolate]

Remove from public noise is the very non-politician answer. That won't get you votes. It won't even get you credit if it helps.

[Himu]

Mandark and others are saying I want to wage a war with the federal government! You haven’t treated my position with respect. It has been outright disdain and mockery.

You said multiple times you want guns to protect yourself the state, and you've cited America's post-WW2 wars to say this would be viable. I've asked you to clarify several times and you haven't.

As for the disdain, do you even read your own posts? You can come out swinging or you can complain about tone but please pick one.

When I say that I don't mean like, protecting myself from the state now or anything, but I think if the Trump presidency shows if anything, is that shit happens. Shit you don't plan for. I have clear on why I don't trust the state...entirely. Without trust in the state, things can go awry. And the state has proven itself to try to right wrongs. America is a country that fought to end slavery, after all. That's saying for something positive I think about our country. However, America is also a country where they snatched up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. It's also a country where the state participated in outright genocide. When you unpredictable forces like Trump and his government, stability goes out the window. That is what Election 2016 taught me. It's good to trust in your country but...it's also wise to keep them at arms length? If that makes any sense? For that, we have the gun. I don't know the circumstances it would occur. I don't know and I won't pretend to know. But Empires fall.  In that scenario, hopefully it occurs after I'm dead and buried. But that's besides the point. My main reasoning for gun ownership is because of self defense.

As for the post-WWII thing. People often say that "citizens would lose! lol" but I know people who own 50 guns. I also know that in terms of sheer numbers of citizens who own guns we outnumber both the military and the police - now can you dig it?! CAN YOU DIG IT?!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm sorry I couldn't help it

[close]

.  Regarding post-WWII wars, most of them are guerilla. America has not "won" a war since WWII. We lost to Vietnamese farmers. Why? Guerilla warfare. America has been fighting Al Queda and ISIS for years and they're still not eradicated but you expect them to take out 100 million people with a stockpile of guns?! People say we have military grade weapons but that we won't be able to defeat the military. Most of the military is pro-2A and they take an oath to protect citizens so I don't think they'll turn against the populace, at least not entirely. Then you have the makers for military's weapons. Why would all of them continue to make their weapons for the military in this scenario? Surely they would make weapons and stuff for the citizens as well? I'm not saying the citizens would win, but with the sheer amount of weapons and people with weapons, they'd have a fighting chance. I don't like to humor this stuff. I typically leave it at,"weapons are good for protection against the state in case it is deemed necessary" and then liberals flip and say stuff about war with the government and you don't stand a chance and blah blah. So I tend to not humor this take a lot and like to keep it short.

[shosta]

I rechristen Nola as "Nola the Patient". You're a good guy!

[Cerveza mas fina]

You think 100 million people would wage guerilla warfare in the usa if someone tried to take guns?

 

[agrajag]

If you own 50 guns, you ain't right in the head.

[Phoenix Dark]

She's still talking about guns being confiscated, violent conflict with the state, and...Vietnam and Iraq. I'm officially done.

[I'm a Puppy!]

I find the whole "We gotta have guns to overthrow the gubmint!" argument hilariously quaint and cute.

Whenever I hear someone make it I wanna pinch their cheeks and ask them if they have one of those plastic silver Sheriff's deputy stars too.

They don't even have to send in the drones. Just cut running water off in a major city, and wait for chaos to ensue.

[agrajag]

I find the whole "We gotta have guns to overthrow the gubmint!" argument hilariously quaint and cute.

Whenever I hear someone make it I wanna pinch their cheeks and ask them if they have one of those plastic silver Sheriff's deputy stars too.

They don't even have to send in the drones. Just cut running water off in a major city, and wait for chaos to ensue.

Those are the type of people you say "bless her heart" about.

[Cerveza mas fina]

Uncle Tom

Aunt Cindi

[thehunter116]

Does Cindi go through political phases?

Cause I ain't a fan of the fox news talking point phase. 

We got etoilet for that already.

[seagrams hotsauce]

I know a man with 50 guns. He has 50 arms so he'll be able to fend off the government when the cheeseburger hippy commies come to take them away. He will shoot them all at the drones bombing him from miles in the air

[Cerveza mas fina]

I know a man that has 50 guns

-no wonder you are scared if you surround yourself with snakes

[Himu]

But notice, this is now like day 3 or 4 of you engaging on this issue without discussing any areas of the topic you agree or disagree on beyond Good Guy With a Gun fantasies and "liberals want to take your guns away" ducktales. What are your positions on background checks? What are your positions on gun trafficking? What are your positions on the ATF?

Let’s be reality.

You haven’t asked.

Mandark and others are saying I want to wage a war with the federal government! You haven’t treated my position with respect. It has been outright disdain and mockery. Have you PERSONALLY asked me? No you fucking haven’t.

And I’m not frustrated no one has called me Nazi. I’m relieved actually.

I've treated some of your positions with the respect they deserve: next to none, because Good Guy With A Gun fantasies and State Tyranny conspiracies don't deserve to be taken seriously. Some of your other positions I have taken seriously, and some I've dismissed because you're trolling.

I've now asked you multiple times in two threads about those issues, and once again you've ignored the questions. Which, again, suggests to me that you aren't really here to talk about the issue and instead are doing what the far right and NRA members typically do: equate all "gun control" with gun confiscation/2A repeal. IE, the strawmen I referred to. Dana put on quite a show last night and lied about the NRA's positions multiple times. They don't really support any of the stuff I mentioned. Gun hysteria thrives off creating a sense that at any moment your "rights" can be taken away by the state. It is a massive machine built on fear and conspiracy theories. And frankly I can't really respect the intellect of anyone who peddles it.

I don't understand how a black man would ever consider the tyrannical states a conspiracy. I only ever say that we need guns in case of the possibility. Not that it will ever happen.

I don't recall you asking me shit.

But here goes.

In order for this to play out you need compromise. What's compromise? You give me something, I give you something. Any less is a concession. The changes in law always come from the anti-gun side. This is why pro-gun people WILL. NOT. PLAY. BALL. WITH YOU.

Gun control people:

Make CCW's shall issue rather than may issue. Limiting people's ability to CCW's is unlawful, especially in California. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Want-a-concealed-gun-in-California-Head-north-5233699.php Take away the stuff like pistol grip bans, ammo limits, and I am telling you gun owners will play ball.

Pro- gun people:

Mental health records and police report number are considered when purchasing a gun. Those who have violent history or multiple police reports (such as the Florida shooter) should be flagged upon purchase attempt.

Gun control people:

Unban gun suppressors.

Pro-gun people:

Guns are licensed (for free or a very, very low cost) and you must pass a test on your safety and handling every 5 years. This should be federal.

Gun control people:

Implement universal CCW. It's unlawful that a mother can be charged a felony because she traveled through another state with a CCW that doesn't recognize her states CCW.

Pro-gun people:

I do not support databases but this is about compromise, right? The database must anonymous and only contain the persons gun license number, their age, and state. No mention of names, race, or gender. Databases are a method that can be abused. Let's say you have race on it? I do not trust the United States of America to abuse such a thing...eventually. Our track record on abusing minorities and taking away our gun rights is absolutely shit.

Addendum:

There should be a federal law that takes inner city gun crime seriously. There have been studies done that have been proven to work and decrease gun crime. As said, these take up the majority of gun homicides. They are also the ones affecting black people and neighborhoods the most. States and local authorities implement them but resources are often limited. They have been proven to make gang bangers turn in their weapns. There should be a federal mandate on this.

Increase funding to mental health. Taking away funding from mental health deservedly should get the GOP a nice fat kick in the ass. How can you say "it's mental health" but then limit mental health funding? That is functionally distinguished mentally-challenged.

Implement a federal program that allows people who are feeling suicidal or depressed to temporarily turn their gun in to a shop or the sheriff until they're feeling better so they aren't tempted to kill themselves from suicidal ideation.

I have more ideas, but I still don't recall you ever asking. I don't humor a lot of the stuff you say I do. Multiple people have put words in my mouth because they're asshats who stereotype pro-gunners.

And like I said before, let's not pretend that there's not an element in the liberal base that aren't calling for gun bans. You're an utter fool to claim otherwise.

[Himu]

She's still talking about guns being confiscated, violent conflict with the state, and...Vietnam and Iraq. I'm officially done.

Mandark fucked asked me you distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.

[team filler]

 

[seagrams hotsauce]

Cindi, you've complained about being treated with 'nothing but disrespect', but you must get that people might not exactly treat you with the most dignified tone because you're so quick to jump to jump on the attack and start calling people names, right?

[Himu]

He said he was fucking done. Despite me being asked. Nah.

I give respect if it's given TO me. Else wise you can fuck off.

[Great Rumbler]

Gun control people:

Unban gun suppressors.

?

[Cerveza mas fina]

So when the catholic church says fegs will burn in hell and contraception is not gods will you ... ?

R e s p e c t

[Himu]

That seems to be the only thing you can go after: my faith, my being trans, my being pro-gun. It's hanging fruit and you're fucking pathetic you fruitcake tattoo wearing Polack.

[seagrams hotsauce]

I give respect if it's given TO me.

So you don't treat people with dignity in a conversation until they somehow show they respect you? You can call people names, and then if people don't respond defensively, you'll stop calling them names? That makes no sense.

[seagrams hotsauce]

'Tattoo-wearing Pollack'
Just giving up now, huh?

[Himu]

Gun control people:

Unban gun suppressors.

?

Unfortunately, movies have fucked with this and now people think silencers actually silence a gun.

Here's how a suppressor works.



Why suppress? A gun without ear protection is a good way to fuck up your hearing. There's no reason someone should have to lose their hearing because a burglar came into their home.

[shosta]

I don't have this ten+ year history the rest of you guys have but I think Lager's cool and I don't like seeing racial slurs hurled at him.

[Cerveza mas fina]

Yes it seems i can only go after the things you claim to support

 

[CatsCatsCats]

Okay, this has been bugging me awhile





Should I know who Shostakovich is?

[shosta]

Nah just a newb.

[agrajag]

I don't have this ten+ year history the rest of you guys have but I think Lager's cool and I don't like seeing racial slurs hurled at him.

Stop both-siding you alt-right biatch