Guns (Yawn)

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby DrEvil » Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:41 pm

JackRiddler » Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:14 am wrote:Take away "your" guns! You know damn well they are ten times likelier to deputize the self-selected right-wing "patriots" who assemble arsenals waiting for the day when they're pointed at the blacks and Latinos as paramilitary auxiliaries and block wardens for a white supremacist Reich. Trump had a famous tweet about his tough guys with guns.


That's a very good point. You know if the government ever goes full fascist it's not going to be white Christians they declare enemies of the state, it's going to be any and all minorities and marginalized groups. Hispanics, Arabs, LGBT, African Americans, Canadians (they're socialists!), every single American member of this subversive forum (the rest goes on the no-fly list), etc. The gun nuts will be lining up to help oppress/remove/eradicate them. The brown-shirts are ready and waiting for their marching orders.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:03 pm

I'm EMBARRASSED: Texas #2 in nation for new gun purchases, behind CALIFORNIA.
Let's pick up the pace Texans. @NRA ~ Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas 10;53 am - 28 0ct 2015

https://twitter.com/gregabbott_tx/status/659427797853536256


Jan 14, 2019 - Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Twitter is a conspiracy-filled cesspool.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-governor-greg-abbotts-twitter-is-wild-11462440

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Thom Hartmann is CIA.

If you trust this government enough to surrender your firearms, I feel for you. And hope none of y'all have kids.


I don't know anything about Hartmann. Never before heard of him. I don't think I'll offend you by asking you for some supporting evidence of this claim, because I feel sure you'll have such at the ready. I found his take on the reason the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution was Patrick Henry's and other large southern slave owners fears that they would be killed by their slaves the first opportunity that arose - you know the argument, the cops are nowhere nearby when you need one - so we've gotta have our own guns to kill 'em defend ourselves, if they try, to be interesting. I never knew much about Henry, the largest slave owner in Colonial Virginia, before listening to Hartmann, aside from, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!"

There's more reason today than in any time before for white people to fear their government, as Indians and those from other cultural backgrounds have since our inception as a nation. I get the sentiment, and while I also understand the rationale, personally I'm more fearful of those with arms who will take up their arms against our government. Then enters the same scenario as seen in too many post apocalypse fiicks, local tribes with no laws, just leaders and followers. Really. Kids as commodities? I'd be horrified to have kids at such a time!

I do believe the plan is to have us at each others throats sooner or later, doing their dirty work for them, thinning the herd, before moving in hard, ending it all and re-instituting order like you never before experienced.

It seems you have beliefs worth dying for, Mr. WRex. I hope it never comes for them to be tested. But if it does, I sure hope no kids are around you to witness your body parts flying about while you're fighting and losing an unwinnable battle. Personally, I have no desire to harm another, even if it means the cost of my life. But that's just me. We all walk different paths in life and I've come to accept that others have no more choice than I as to where our own paths take us.

You know the revolution's not going to get started by liberals.

It's more likely come the gun round-up that prompts the revolution that more armed people will be defending themselves from their neighbors than fighting government forces. But have at it. I'm already as good as dead.

One scenario: A country guy of meager means who's well respected and owner of one or more handguns dies intestate. His only living heir(s} is a/are felon(s) with a violent past. The heir is the only person administering the decedent's estate and their is no court supervision, as there would be if there had been a will. Whom do you imagine it is who becomes the proud new (illegal)owner of an gun collection?

What gun control talked about so far would tackle this situation? None.

Anyway, I noticed no mention of Odessa, TX. I guess it's true what they say:
Image
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:04 am

seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:57 pm wrote:nobody is asking anybody to surrender their guns and you know that will never happen


Oh, of course not -- implying that dozens of public pundits are already discussing this is paranoid, I agree. Nobody will ever ask Americans to surrender their weapons, whether through mandatory buy-backs and/or no-knock confiscation raids. MOVE bombing never happened. Waco never happened. Ruby Ridge never happened. Sure. Great call. Keep voting Democrat.

82_28 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:04 pm wrote:No he ain't. I listen to him for about an hour or so almost every morning and find him quite normal and neutral. He's less left than me. I hopelessly want all assault firearms melted down, the borders erased etc. He wants none of that.


Devastating cascade of logic bombs right there, my man. You are a piercing analyst.

JackRiddler » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:14 pm wrote:Take away "your" guns! You know damn well they are ten times likelier to deputize the self-selected right-wing "patriots" who assemble arsenals waiting for the day when they're pointed at the blacks and Latinos as paramilitary auxiliaries and block wardens for a white supremacist Reich. Trump had a famous tweet about his tough guys with guns.


If you don't own firearms or feel much of a need to defend yourself past building urban coalitions, I understand. I just ... don't understand.

It seems you have beliefs worth dying for, Mr. WRex. I hope it never comes for them to be tested. But if it does, I sure hope no kids are around you to witness your body parts flying about while you're fighting and losing an unwinnable battle.


How lucky are we to type shit like this? To have notions of safety, of peace. To believe that institutions could protect us. Right on! Someday it might even be true.

Let's surrender the last of our power to the people who protected Epstein. Our kids will be safe then.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:17 am

Such strange lessons you draw from Waco or MOVE, as far as how well these groups "defended themselves" with their arms and the curious ideological faith that accumulating these arms would amount to "self-defense." (MOVE, as far as I know, it should be said, did not accumulate very much in the way of arms.)

Now the Koresh group and MOVE were attacked by an ugly big state, yes, on that much we can agree. And what was done to both was a crime of state and violation of human rights that should have, in both cases, been prosecuted. So presumably we have these two points of agreement.

However, there are many steps from that to the idea that instead of "urban coalitions," I should be hoping to build coalitions with the likes of Koresh (or even MOVE), or with other typical arsenal accumulators, especially coalitions centering on their supposed right to accumulate arsenals. That's just nonsense.

Your assertion seems to be that all this arsenal accumulating has to do with defense against the state. Is that right? What does the empirical record in the U.S. in the last 50 years tell us about this strategy?

In the real world, when have the arsenal accumulators in the U.S. actually defended themselves against the state? When was their arsenals really accumulated for defense against the state? I see arsenal accumulators have accomplished two things so far:

- In exceedingly rare cases, they have gotten themselves killed or imprisoned -- in some cases unjustly and through state crime, we agree -- on behalf of really dubious, usually extremely right-wing ideas. Again, this has been exceedingly rare, so far. The most systematic case, interestingly, was the wave of state murders against the Black Panthers. There is no way to know, but my opinion is that if they had stuck only to building militias, and had not challenged the system by attempting "urban coalitions" and doing neighborhood breakfasts, they would not have been targeted for systematic war.

- More recently, arsenal accumulators have murdered a lot of people in mass shootings, sometimes at random, and sometimes targeting specific groups. In the latter cases, the specific groups are almost never anything one could describe as "agents of the state" (not that I would support that). Recently we've seen that group-targeted mass shootings are almost always directed at a) the shooter's families and friends, especially their female partners or ex-girlfriends, followed by b) black people, latino people, women, gays, poor people, etc. There was that one supposedly exemplary case of the guy who shot at Republican Congress members. I do not see anything good that was accomplished by that, or in what way it constituted the "self-defense" of the moron who did it.

Another time we can argue about what "urban coalitions" accomplish. It's a mixed record. However, I will observe that at least some of the time "urban coalitions" are trying to accomplish things I actually agree with, things that might concord with values of justice and freedom and solidarity and a better country or world for all or most. I do not observe that among the arsenal accumulators, certainly not in the United States. Mostly they are devoted to causes I find stupid, odious and violent, usually of an extreme right-wing and white supremacist or Christianist variety. At best they have some kind of yeoman ideal (of the kind that never existed) about how this country is theirs and they own some piece of property and whatever they do on it no matter what is totally okay, maybe approved by God. They may simultaneously oppose the surveillance state or wars abroad, but that doesn't make such groups into anything I would want to (in the name of my own self-defense, no less!) ally with. Especially not around the issue of their right to accumulate arms for some imagined final battle against an enemy that they seem less often to conceive as "the repressive U.S. imperial state" and more often conceive in a way that corresponds to... oh, look, "urban coalitions."

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14459
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:47 am

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:04 am wrote:
seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:57 pm wrote:nobody is asking anybody to surrender their guns and you know that will never happen


Oh, of course not -- implying that dozens of public pundits are already discussing this is paranoid, I agree. Nobody will ever ask Americans to surrender their weapons, whether through mandatory buy-backs and/or no-knock confiscation raids. MOVE bombing never happened. Waco never happened. Ruby Ridge never happened. Sure. Great call. Keep voting Democrat.


you've donated to Democrats, right? but you don't vote for them?

You gave Yang money, right?

Yang:
We also have to address all instances and causes of gun violence in this country. Physical confrontations and domestic violence are more likely to be deadly when a firearm is involved. Suicide rates involving guns are far too high: over 20,000 Americans each year. Mass shootings in the United States have reached epidemic proportions.

For many Americans, guns are a big part of their culture and identity. That must be respected. However, guns are a major responsibility and thus we need to have common-sense gun safety measures, especially considering that there are already approaching 400 million firearms in the United States. Responsible gun owners should continue to enjoy the right to bear arms, subject to licensing and education requirements that will enhance public safety. But we need to ban the most dangerous weapons that make mass shootings as deadly as they have become, and address the other violence – particularly suicide – that is plaguing this country.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/


I voted Democratic and I got women's health care, guaranteed right to control my body, great local school system and legal pot...because everything is local

but I thought you told me to give to local ...did you mean not to give to local Democrats not to vote for local Democrats?

as that notorious CIA guy Thom Hartman said Democracy is not a spectator sport :lol:

Ray Bradbury: Action is hope. There is no hope without action.

trump: Any Jew voting Democratic is uninformed or disloyal

I supported Cynthia McKinney once upon a time .....that got me nowhere but I did get a really nice picture with her :)

it seems to me you have never played poker....or maybe you grab extra cards from under the table

maybe you could tell us all what your plan is....besides staring at your front door with an AR15 in your hands

and please give us some real evidence that Democrats are actually going to pry all your guns out of your hands


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmpyZnIV-t8
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31709
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Cordelia » Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:16 am

seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:57 pm wrote:
yes I have kids and one of them was a witness
to a mass shooting and to this day every mass shooting brings back memories over 280 this year alone...she is not worried about not having an AR15 she is just glad she is alive

the time it took to find out if my daughter was dead or alive was torture...I don't wish that on anyone


Waiting must have been horrible to endure. Both of my children have witnessed shootings; one from an apartment window in a high-crime area of D.C., the other, in closer proximity, in someone's home. ("It's nothing like what you see on television or in movies; it happens so quickly".)

Over a span of 35 years, I've known five people who were murdered in unrelated incidents--none knew each other. I’m still kinda surprised that no victim I knew was shot (though firearms played a part several years later for two of the victim’s husbands—both suspects—one was convicted of 1st degree murder after he shot & killed a key witness in a drug case; the other shot himself).

DrEvil » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:15 pm wrote:
...If the government wants to get you a semi-automatic rifle isn't going to do shit to stop them. They have bigger and better guns than you (and body armor, trained marksmen, armored vehicles, grenades, C4, drones and satellites, and that's just the civilian branches).


Absolutely. Also, unless someone has been through extensive military/police training, no matter what commitments, beliefs or bravado that person boasts, most likely, imo, they'll surrender their firearms very quickly when encountering some of DrEvil’s above list (especially if they have children).

(Me, I found I'm highly averse to holding metal objects that carry such potentially high velocity in my hands, but I understand that others don't share that attribute.)
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:42 am

hard choice Onion or gun thread :shrug:

t-shirt and a handgun story ...at least it wasn't an AR15

if you can't conceal carry in a church ......the end times are approaching

Argument Between West Viriginia Pastors' Wives Ends With Gunfire in Church Parking Lot
By K Thor Jensen On 9/4/19 at 11:56 AM EDT
A pastor's wife in West Virginia has been charged with reckless endangerment after allegedly firing a gun in a church parking lot.

Melinda Frye Toney, 44, is accused of pulling out a pistol that accidentally discharged during an argument with another pastor's wife at New Life Apostolic Church in Oak Hill on May 11.

Toney is the wife of New Life pastor Earl Toney while the other woman, Lori Haywood, is married to New Life's youth pastor, David Haywood,

Fayette Sheriff's Detective Kevin Willis told the Beckley Register-Herald the animosity between the two women had been simmering for some time. Their husbands had thought the women should publicly bury the hatchet to avoid additional strife.

"The pastor and the youth pastor had thought, 'Maybe we could get them together, we can hash this out and fix this before it escalates,' " Willis said Wednesday. "Of course, it just made it worse, I think."

According to Willis, "the straw that broke the camel's back" was an argument over a t-shirt Haywood had was wearing.

Haywood would only say, "We had a disagreement, and when we sat down to talk, I called her out, and she lost it."
Image
Pastor Earl Toney and wife Melinda Toney
New Life Apostolic Church pastor Earl Toney and his wife, Melinda. New Life Apostolic Church
According to authorities, Melinda walked out of the church during the disagreement and went to her car in the parking lot, where she got her handgun.

Realizing what she intended, Earl and followed her outside.

Willis reports Pastor Toney intercepted his wife before she was able to come back inside the church and attempted to wrestle the gun out of her hand. The weapon fired a single shot during the struggle, but nobody was hurt.

Haywood, who was leaving the church when the gun discharged, called the police and told them that she was Toney's intended target. The department reviewed parking-lot surveillance video but could not determine whether the pistol was aimed at Haywood before it was fired.

Mrs. Toney owned the handgun legally with a concealed carry permit.

"We were just trying to leave, peaceful," Haywood told the Register-Herald. "The reason for the shooting was stupid, and very unnecessary."

Melinda declined to speak to police after her arrest and requested an attorney instead, according to Willis, who added that a mental evaluation of her may be part of the investigation.
https://www.newsweek.com/pastors-wife-g ... ot-1457652



seems to be a different take from the christians if you are a black guy with a gun in a church parking lot maybe the problem was he didn't have a permit

“I pray that through all of this that people will come to know Christ and I ask our nation to reflect on Romans 8:31: 'If God is for us, who can be against us?'”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/tenn ... rison.html
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31709
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby 82_28 » Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:12 pm

Hardly, Wombat, and I do not want an argument. But "less left than me" means I am "analyzing" what he says when I do listen to him and I think guns are stupid and also borders -- both being deadly. He is in support of both of those things. He does not want guns ripped away from people who worship them and has stated again and again is not for open borders. He's not CIA and if he is, the CIA is very good out of their outpost in PDX. But you're right, could be, but I don't think so.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11175
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:22 pm

"They're comin' to get our guns!" We've all heard that complaint and probably more than once. But could it be true? Or is it simply the cry from people who for two generations have been fed NRA propaganda proclaiming this to be true - and coming sooner, rather than later, because they genuinely believe it to be true?

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/article234708747.html

Ammon Bundy says FBI has reversed its decision to deny his AR-15 purchase

By Ammon Bundy via Facebook September 04, 2019 12:47 PM

On Aug. 31, 2019, Ammon Bundy failed a federally required background check to purchase a firearm at an Emmett, Idaho, sporting goods store. Three days later, Bundy says the FBI changed its mind and OK'd his background check.


^^^ posted yesterday by fruhmenschen here.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:18 pm

JackRiddler » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:17 am wrote:Your assertion seems to be that all this arsenal accumulating has to do with defense against the state. Is that right?


Not at all, and as you illustrate, anyone earnestly asserting that is retarded. The history is right there -- there is no defense against the state. None at all.

There is, however, the security of obscurity -- because the state, despite being omnipotent in comparison to we peasants who involuntarily fund it, does not actually have the resources for law enforcement. Every American is a criminal, but we mostly get away with it because there is no God and there is no eye in the pyramid, just assholes with desk jobs. They only bring the hammer down on the problems they can hear and see.

So what are guns for? Self defense. Against other Americans. Which is necessary.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:25 am

seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:47 am wrote:you've donated to Democrats, right? but you don't vote for them?

You gave Yang money, right?


Recently: Yang, Gravel and Gabbard. According to Mike Gravel, his last name has nothing whatsoever to do with rocks, but I remain skeptical. There was a British sitcom about such pretensions, "Keeping Up Appearances." He's selling the mailing list to dubious third party allies these days.

All of those donations were aimed at making 2020 more entertaining.

I have to admit, I'm disappointed with the extent of CNN's success in tamping down the inherent surrealism of the 2020 field. Hot Pagan Witch Mom. Bloody Eye Joe. Beto acting human and pretending to have "feelings." It's been a wild ride.

Yang is another SV try-hard striving to optimize for [X] when [X] is safety. Any power you can extend, you should: the logic of technocracy. But the UBI question needs to keep getting rubbed in the faces of the civilized world. It's ultimately a two-staged question: will you extend UBI to 330m+ US citizens? If so, will you extend UBI to 9b+ world citizens?

Anyways, overall, politicians are incredibly cheap, venal things and the point of donation isn't agreement so much as opportunism.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:39 am

170 years after "We'll Spill Blood to Keep Our Slaves."

That worked well.


Conservatives: We’ll Spill Blood to Keep Our Guns
The right-wing commentariat keeps warning America that if lawmakers intercede, gun owners will have no choice but to kill cops.

Matt FordSeptember 5, 2019
Last month, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke proposed a modest solution to the relentless tide of mass shootings: a mandatory buyback program for every AR-15 in the country. The View co-host Meghan McCain responded with a dire warning. “The AR-15 is by far the most popular gun in America, by far,” she told her fellow panelists. “I was just in the middle of nowhere Wyoming, if you’re talking about taking people’s guns from them, there’s going to be a lot of violence.”

Tucker Carlson echoed McCain’s blood-soaked sentiment on his Tuesday night broadcast. “So, this is—what you are calling for is civil war,” he said. “What you are calling for is an incitement to violence. It’s something I wouldn’t want to live here when that happened, would you? I’m serious.” Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative columnist, also warned of tragedy. “I know people who keep AR-15’s buried because they’re afraid one day the government might come for them,” he wrote on Twitter. “I know others who are stockpiling them. It is not a stretch to say there’d be violence if the [government] tried to confiscate them.”

“There would be violence” neatly elides what’s actually being claimed: Some gun-rights activists would murder government officials who try to enforce a duly passed law. This isn’t an extreme viewpoint among such gun enthusiasts. If anything, it’s one of their central tenets.

Let’s examine the hypothetical scenario in which something akin to O’Rourke’s proposal gets enacted. First, Democrats capture the White House and the Senate in next year’s election. Second, they pass a federal law that requires mandatory buybacks of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles. Third, the Supreme Court narrowly upholds the law’s constitutionality, perhaps with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the fifth vote to save it on narrow grounds. This sequence of events is slightly improbable. Then again, so were the events that led to Donald Trump becoming president.

Who, then, would gun-rights supporters murder in response? Would it be the lawmakers who passed the law? Would it be the judges who rejected legal challenges to it? Would it be the president who championed the initiative on the campaign trail and spent political capital to make it a reality? Perhaps the activists, such as the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook and the teenagers who saw their classmates die in Parkland, would be targeted. The civil servants tasked with implementing the buyback program might have to face this grave danger. So would the cops who come knocking on doors, looking for unaccounted AR-15s.

This insurrectionist message is not new. Sharron Angle, a far-right Nevada politician, implied that gun-rights advocates might turn violent against Democrats during her 2010 race against then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry,” she explained during a radio interview in 2010. “This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical.”

The host interjected to suggest that America might be headed that way. “If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now,” he said. “Well it’s to defend ourselves,” Angle continued. “And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.” Her inflammatory remarks, combined with other controversial stances, helped Reid win reelection that year even as Republicans toppled numerous Democrats a wave election across the country.

Joe Walsh, a former Illinois representative, also invoked the prospect of violence on the eve of the 2016 election. “On November 8th, I’m voting for Trump,” he wrote on Twitter shortly before Election Day. “On November 9th, if Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket. You in?” When CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked him to clarify what he meant, Walsh said he meant “protesting” and “participating in acts of civil disobedience”—two actions where people bearing muskets are typically rare. Walsh now opposes Trump and launched a putative primary challenge against him last month; it’s unclear whether he’ll grab a musket if he loses.

There is usually a strong taboo against discussing the potential assassination of major American political figures. One out of every eleven U.S. presidents has been murdered in office, and Barack Obama’s historic presidency only amplified those quiet fears. In recent years, however, that sentiment has become less politically toxic in right-wing circles. President Donald Trump once hypothesized on the campaign trail that gun-rights proponents would kill Hillary Clinton if she took office. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he told a booing crowd in North Carolina in August 2016. “Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Though Trump received ample criticism for the remark, it was essentially a blunter version of a popular gun-rights talking point. “The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz remarked during his presidential campaign in 2015. “It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny—for the protection of liberty.” The implication then, as now, is that Americans can simply shoot their elected officials if they get out of hand.

One problem (among many) with this point is that not everyone agrees on what constitutes tyranny. Those who identify with Antifa, the leaderless left-wing movement that confronts far-right protesters with physical force, would argue that they are working to hinder the rise of fascist movements inside the United States. It’s hard to think of a more iconic modern example of tyranny than fascism. Cruz, however, is unpersuaded. Last month, he introduced a bill to have Antifa declared a domestic terrorist organization. Perhaps black-bloc protesters would have won his sympathy if they used semiautomatic rifles instead of milkshakes.

Indeed, some of the far-right gunmen who carried out massacres in recent years have argued that they were acting to prevent some form of tyranny, even if they didn’t use that exact word. The El Paso gunman slaughtered shoppers at a local Walmart last month to prevent what he called a “Hispanic invasion of the United States,” which he said would lead to a “one-party state.”

In February, federal investigators arrested a Coast Guard lieutenant who allegedly stockpiled guns and ammunition as part of a plot to assassinate Trump’s political opponents and prevent his possible impeachment. Among his purported targets were Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and multiple Democratic presidential candidates. “The defendant intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country,” federal prosecutors warned a federal judge when they asked to detain him pending trial. So would gun-rights activists, apparently, if President Beto O’Rourke or President Elizabeth Warren attempted to ban some types of semiautomatic rifles.

It’s debatable whether even the most stringent gun-control measures would prevent mass shootings, and it’s doubtful that those measures would survive the Roberts Court’s scrutiny. But time and time again, these proposals reveal a troubling window into the mindset of the gun-rights activists who oppose them. That, in turn, only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger. If the main reason you need an AR-15 is to murder civil servants and elected officials, you shouldn’t have it in the first place.
https://newrepublic.com/article/154931/ ... -keep-guns
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31709
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby 82_28 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:07 pm

guneating.jpg
guneating.jpg (71.08 KiB) Viewed 258 times
.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11175
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:12 pm

^^^^^^

A person so inclined can just as readily utilize a nearby utensil -- knife, spoon, fork -- or even the waiter's pen (after adding a tip to the check) to expire fellow diners. At least when someone walks into an establishment with a gun in their (exposed) holster you know who to keep an eye on, right?

Besides, the aspiring quickdraws aren't the ones shooting up establishments. Anyone initiate a mass shooting with a holstered revolver or handgun?

I'm being facetious, to a degree, but this discussion quickly reaches the absurd -- or perhaps a form of satire, depending on one's sense of humor -- from both ends of the spectrum.





Guns aren't the problem in this culture of ours. A gun can sit in an empty room for eternity and never harm another living thing. Problems are introduced once conditioned* humans get added to the equation.

*the crux of the matter.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2374
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby 82_28 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:25 pm

Apropos of nothing and I do believe that I have told the story here before (speaking of utensils) but several years ago I was at JFK airport and past security and some restaurant there had steak knives already set on the tables right next to the gates. Some "fancy" place. It should have been named "Beyond Boxcutters" or something.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11175
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Grizzly and 6 guests