|
Ogmius815 posted:I’d like to point out that when you’re willing to sacrifice thousands of lives, including but not limited to ten year old school children, in the name of a violent fantasy it doesn’t make you less lovely if the fantasy is “communist revolution” rather than “turner diaries RaHoWa” does this willingness to sacrifice lives become more acceptable if the fantasy in question is "surely, republicans will work with us if we write these people off" because, to be entirely clear, this is the current stance of the democratic party, as regards gun control legislation, abortion rights legislation, and people ICE is throwing in concentration camps. the people fantasizing about their guns overthrowing the country are indulging in a dream born of lovely Founding Father deification and NRA sales pitches. the difference between your position and theirs is not that some must die to bring about their imagined better world; you are wholly aligned on that point. the difference is in whether your violent deaths of choice are a price you're willing to pay to keep the status quo rolling, or a price you are willing to pay to be rid of it. witness the gospel of the proud voice of liberal texas, fresh off his furious heckling of Abbott: “To those who are attending the NRA convention across the street, you are not our enemies. We are not yours,” O’Rourke said. after all. better any number of people die, than a Democrat be obliged to treat the political party openly threatening his supporters' lives as enemies.
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Mulva posted:Well, those aren't the 'opposing side'. Those were innocent civilians who did loving nothing to nobody. And part of that doing nothing to nobody was not being a threat to the armed forces, which kind of makes using their deaths to boost the idea of American effectiveness kind of ghoulish. "Look at how good the US is at fighting, there's like a mass grave worth of dead infants over the course of the war!". I don't think you and I read the same post and I'm not clear what you're even arguing with at this point
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:i believe vahakyla is talking about the totality of people killed, not merely people actively involved in fighting? Correct. Because the the ones not involved in the fighting in our example are your neighbors, lovers, and family.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I don't think you and I read the same post and I'm not clear what you're even arguing with at this point You read a post that said that fighting the US is a masturbatory fantasy, and claimed the Afghanistan conflict as evidence with hundreds of thousands lost in the opposition. I said there was nowhere near that many deaths in Afghanistan among the Taliban, and that in reality they actually killed more people than they lost fighting. You replied that maybe they meant civilian deaths too to get the figure to hundreds of thousands. I said it'd be kind of loving ghoulish to add civilian deaths to a figure meant to show military competence against an opposing force. We all caught up? What's throwing you about this chain of statements?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Like I genuinely get the idea of wanting a gun because it gives you the closest thing you have to undeniable power in the world besides Absurd Wealth. When you are scared and terrified and hopeless having something that you know can let you fight back is a genuine thing that can put you at ease. I've been there. I will probably be there again. But it is a tchotchke. The odds of it helping you vs the odds of it hurting you and your loved ones are immensely weighted towards the latter, especially if you're so scared and depressed and terrified by events that you think you need a gun for protection, because Trump 2024 or whatever horrors await us in the future is absolutely going to make some people want to take their own life and a gun makes that very easy. Yeah. Just because someone gets a gun because of demonstrable fear doesn't mean that gun is actually a solution.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Isn't this implying that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq were wrong to resist since their deaths were inevitable, and they should have just meekly gone to their graves? That's not better. The resistance you're talking about was enabled by fully automatic small arms, heavy machine guns, artillery rounds and mines used for IEDs, mortars, RPGs, and crew served weapons, and free access to explosive materials used for numerous military applications. The AK-47, which is illegal in the US, was the least feared weapon employed by the Taliban. And even it is too fearsome by our laughably lax standards.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
 Checks out
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
Mulva posted:You read a post that said that fighting the US is a masturbatory fantasy, and claimed the Afghanistan conflict as evidence with hundreds of thousands lost in the opposition. I said there was nowhere near that many deaths in Afghanistan among the Taliban, and that in reality they actually killed more people than they lost fighting. There were plenty of cases where several hundred fighters engaging in armed resistance against the Nazis would result in thousands or tens of thousands of deaths. Because not only would the fascists brutally crush the partisans, with total disregard for collateral damage or civilian casualties, but they would also treat nearby communities as complicit and engage in bloody reprisals against civilians without bothering to work out blame or guilt. So no, that's not something you can ignore when you're calculating the success rate of armed resistance. The worst case scenario in a failed act of armed resistance isn't "your entire resistance group is utterly slaughtered". The worst case scenario is "your entire resistance group is utterly slaughtered, everyone you've ever talked to in public is imprisoned and tortured, and your entire neighborhood is burned to the ground, and then your armed resistance is used as justification for further crackdowns nationwide".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There were plenty of cases where several hundred fighters engaging in armed resistance against the Nazis would result in thousands or tens of thousands of deaths. Because not only would the fascists brutally crush the partisans, with total disregard for collateral damage or civilian casualties, but they would also treat nearby communities as complicit and engage in bloody reprisals against civilians without bothering to work out blame or guilt. Oh, so it's the Nazis now. Well there were also plenty of cases of them just loving brutally slaughtering folks for literally nothing, or just preemptively getting some executions out of the way because of assumed resistance down the road, or because it made the local commander's dick hard, so guess not fighting has it's own metrics to worry about. Which I would think is the actual worst case scenario, that you are going to die and literally doesn't matter what you do. Fight, hide, run, pretend it isn't happening. Dead, dead, dead, dead.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
i genuinely cannot parse the arguments being made here. nazis, therefore ??? i don't think the same old american "COME AND TAKE THEM" insurgent fantasy is any more realistic when it's wearing a red star, but these nazi arguments seem completely incoherent
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Oh, so it's the Nazis now. Well there were also plenty of cases of them just loving brutally slaughtering folks for literally nothing, or just preemptively getting some executions out of the way because of assumed resistance down the road, or because it made the local commander's dick hard, so guess not fighting has it's own metrics to worry about. Which I would think is the actual worst case scenario, that you are going to die and literally doesn't matter what you do. Fight, hide, run, pretend it isn't happening. I brought up the Nazis because the armed resistance to them - and their response to it - are extremely well-documented and not really muddled by revisionism. And also because people were literally dragging out "if the Nazis' victims had been armed" right-wing talking points just a couple pages ago. But civilian casualties when an occupying force faces armed resistance is hardly a uniquely German phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Seems like this argument keeps coming back to one side acknowledging that AR15s are no match for state forces but that civilians having them is "worth it" because it's "better than doing nothing". I think this is pretty nihilistic especially when "worth it" is correctly understood as tens of thousands of lives a year and every child in public school having a reasonable fear of being blown apart by gunfire in the middle of class.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:i genuinely cannot parse the arguments being made here. nazis, therefore ??? Bathtub Cheese brought up the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to imply people disagreeing with them (Gripweed posted about the futility of confronting a fascist gov't with small arms) would've sided with the Nazis. edit: they might've been referencing removal to the Warsaw ghetto and not the Uprising which was action against moving people from the ghetto to death camps. Bathtub Cheese posted:I keep imagining you giving this preening lecture to people about to be forcibly removed to the Warsaw ghetto. It's the easiest way to realize you're on the side of the Nazis. Then Main Paineframe responded to the above. The discussion over the last few pages has largely revolved around gun ownership by leftists and whether it's justified for 1) personal/community defense and 2) confronting fascist groups or government. Most of the latter involves an awful lot of hypotheticals and hand-waving, the Nazis are a relevant historical example. I'd kinda prefer if the discussion was more rooted in history rather than pure speculation and hypotheticals but I'm not issuing a mod ruling unless/until it gets really out of hand. Also, as Koos and I believe EHF have mentioned, it would be cool if someone was interested in starting a gun control thread. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 23:58 on May 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
It's difficult to have this rooted in history because the current US police state can apply deadly force with far greater ease and precision than any example history can provide. This reality certainly calls into question any attempt to cite resistance against the Nazi state as something to emulate in hopes of success. We've been hosed on this front since at least 9/11, but let's not forget that the Philadelphia PD dropped a literal bomb on the house of someone they considered a threat, killing 11 people. In 1985. Those people had small arms and all it did was cause their neighbors houses to get blown up.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Seems like this argument keeps coming back to one side acknowledging that AR15s are no match for state forces but that civilians having them is "worth it" because it's "better than doing nothing". Issue is that AR15 = all guns when it comes down to it. AR15s are the same as any other rifle anyone actually uses where it really matters, whether for huntng or whatever. The details barely matter when killing people. So the argument is basically full disarming and not a single gun or type of gun, which creates a greater argument. Just due to hunting, while being a huge leftist, I understand just enough about guns to cringe at some of these focuses. AR15s are just optics. It's basically banning the Honda Civics of guns.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
To be honest I can understand hunting and I think there is a valid argument to be made for a legal rifle or similar weapon that can be owned if you have a proper license. I think it's hard to argue this point though because we're all predisposed to looking for loopholes and it is incredibly easy to picture Whitey J. Whitefish getting approved for a hunting license and the right to own a hunting rifle despite never hunting and basically just requiring you to pinky swear. I think this is also why it's so hard to discuss half-measures, because as we've seen any attempt at half-measures just gets rules lawyered into near uselessness. Trying to the pick and choose the specific Bad Gun(s) to ban is meaningless because gun manufacturers will just start selling new weapons that technically are legal because they called a trigger a flimflorm instead.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
Mulva posted:There aren't enough soldiers to cover the United States. They aren't going to have enough drones and helicopters to lock poo poo down, and they could only come close by pulling literally every single overseas soldier we have. Even then that gets you.....maybe 3 or 4 of your more contentious states? Maybe? Also they are super loving obvious. If you learned nothing from the last 20 years of military involvement in the Middle East it's that an actual occupation of hostile territory is loving miserable and challenging, and we didn't even do that good a job at it. You understand that a foreign occupation of a country is very different from fighting a civil war? Not only does U.S. military usually know nothing about the countries it has invaded in modern times, it can always just flee out and go back to America. In United States, it would know everything there is to know. And there would be no other option then to win or get shot by the winners, so it doesn't matter how many casualties you inflict. And Reagan wasn't shot during a time of civil war. I think the security would have been a bit more beefed if he had been. And I'm not talking about tanks or artillery. When they bring up Vietnam and Afghanistan, armed leftists always forget that their movement is composed of people who live in a modern society and know very little of war of any kind unless they are veterans. Put on top of that the hand-wringing about things that are nowhere near as bad as blowing up poo poo and civilian casualties and I really think you're the one fantasizing about things here. So I'll quote myself: DarkCrawler posted:In the last theatres of war U.S. has been in it has been facing people who have been at war for literal decades, and even without being at war have been constantly facing conditions that would have even the poorest American citizens crying uncle in a week. The idea that American leftists or anyone else for that matter would mount up a protracted guerilla campaign against the U.S. military when they are dependent on WalMart and McDonalds for basic sustenance is such a ridiculous fantasy that it makes me and anyone else who knows the slightest bit about forces like Taleban, Viet Cong/NVA or the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army laugh, and for a good reason. There's way more you need for a guerilla war than weapons. The U.S. left probably couldn't even start one, much less win one. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 00:56 on May 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I think the security would have been a bit more beefed if he had been. There isn't a level up from the security he had short of "Never seen in public". Dude just walked up in the perfect window to take a shot, then took a shot. There were snipers, and counter-snipers, and obvious security, and undercover security, and agents watching every square inch of everywhere. Which is why they were able to respond really, really fast to the dude that pulled a gun and started blasting....which was still not enough. Dumb luck. You can say it's why Reagan was hit at all, or you can say it's all that kept him alive. Both are true enough. quote:Put on top of that the hand-wringing about things that are nowhere near as bad as blowing up poo poo and civilian casualties and I really think you're the one fantasizing about things here. I've never called for an uprising or said it'd go well. It just isn't going to go badly for most of the reason you chuckleheads listed before. That last one is actually right though. We aren't going to have an uprising for the same reason we aren't going to have stricter gun control or a million other things. Nobody cares. And if you were to say "*I* care" I'd say congratulations. You're nobody. I'm nobody too. Get a hundred million more and that might actually matter. Until then? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Darko posted:Issue is that AR15 = all guns when it comes down to it. AR15s are the same as any other rifle anyone actually uses where it really matters, whether for huntng or whatever. The details barely matter when killing people. Yeah, if three things had gone differently (The 1994 import ban against Norinco's dirty dealing; the 2004 AWB sunset that led to an explosion in the AR platform rifles; the 2014 import ban vs. Russia following the invasion of Ukraine), we would be having this same discussion about AKs rather than ARs.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
Darko posted:Issue is that AR15 = all guns when it comes down to it. AR15s are the same as any other rifle anyone actually uses where it really matters, whether for huntng or whatever. The details barely matter when killing people. This is ridiculous. It's the Honda Civic of guns in the US because it's available and allowed. It was always a restricted firearm in Canada (making it gently caress-useless for hunting) and now I think it's prohibited, the first of which I agree with based on its characteristics and the second of which I do not, because it was all about optics. It should, like handguns, be a restricted firearm subject to strict controls on ownership, transport, and use.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
CYBEReris posted:In his address to the central committee of the communist league in 1850 Marx famously stated of German workers "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." I understand disagreeing with this notion especially in the modern context of deadlier and deadlier weapons being developed but claiming it's some sort of fringe position of anti-capitalism rather than a common one both anarchists and communists have synthesized outside the context of Marx's specific address is just wrong. I did some research because I was curious and whatever Marx's beliefs, the Soviet union spent nearly the entire 20th century with very strict gun laws (5 years in very not-fun soviet prison for possession of a hunting rifle) with the laws ping ponging a bit over whether to allow a smooth bore hunting shotgun. China also has incredibly strict gun control laws and since the 1960s has had a near total ban on all forms of private gun ownership. In 2006 they heavily increased enforcement of this. Also significantly, some gun crimes carry the death penalty. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/21/content_856308.htm in the communist party's own words: [as an aside this is from 2007, but could be written yesterday] quote:Public Security Ministry spokesman Wu Heping on Friday said China would maintain strict controls on guns, while responding to the deadly rampage at a US university on Monday. Even China hugely walked back Mao's 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun' as both unworkable and too socially costly. I don't think there's much ambiguity in their stated position. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:31 on May 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I did some research because I was curious and whatever Marx's beliefs, the Soviet union spent nearly the entire 20th century with very strict gun laws (5 years in very not-fun soviet prison for possession of a hunting rifle) with the laws ping ponging a bit over whether to allow a smooth bore hunting shotgun. China also has incredibly strict gun control laws and since the 1960s has had a near total ban on all forms of private gun ownership. In 2006 they heavily increased enforcement of this. Also significantly, some gun crimes carry the death penalty. Cuba seems to be the odd one out here, allowed licensed possession of firearms for valid purposes including occupational need, safety, hunting, target shooting and collecting. I would say that the rest of the world shows, in general, full prohibition is not necessary to reduce gun deaths, but strict controls definitely help and do not unreasonably infringe upon the freedoms of people with a genuine justification for firearm ownership.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I did some research because I was curious and whatever Marx's beliefs, the Soviet union spent nearly the entire 20th century with very strict gun laws (5 years in very not-fun soviet prison for possession of a hunting rifle) with the laws ping ponging a bit over whether to allow a smooth bore hunting shotgun. China also has incredibly strict gun control laws and since the 1960s has had a near total ban on all forms of private gun ownership. In 2006 they heavily increased enforcement of this. Also significantly, some gun crimes carry the death penalty. It seems staggeringly obvious why this is if you think about it. When capitalists run the country, keep your guns for when you need them. When communists have taken over, you don’t need guns anymore, because you aren’t laboring under a political system that systematically empowers people who want to control and/or kill you. It’s why comfortable people feel like guns are useless; they are useless when the system is set up to protect and coddle you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I did some research because I was curious and whatever Marx's beliefs, the Soviet union spent nearly the entire 20th century with very strict gun laws (5 years in very not-fun soviet prison for possession of a hunting rifle) with the laws ping ponging a bit over whether to allow a smooth bore hunting shotgun. China also has incredibly strict gun control laws and since the 1960s has had a near total ban on all forms of private gun ownership. In 2006 they heavily increased enforcement of this. Also significantly, some gun crimes carry the death penalty. How is that walking back the Mao line? It's not contradictory at all. Do you understand what the Mao line means?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
selec posted:When communists have taken over, you don’t need guns anymore, because you aren’t laboring under a political system that systematically empowers people who want to control and/or kill you. And if there's one thing that the Soviet Union is known for, it is not having a political system known for controlling or killing anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:And if there's one thing that the Soviet Union is known for, it is not having a political system known for controlling or killing anyone. I don’t care, go read about the Indian famines caused directly by capitalist profiteering, and have a coke and a smile, and remember you are comfortable in the largest prison state that has ever existed.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
selec posted:It seems staggeringly obvious why this is if you think about it. China and Russia, notably communist societies
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
selec posted:I don’t care, go read about the Indian famines caused directly by capitalist profiteering, and have a coke and a smile, and remember you are comfortable in the largest prison state that has ever existed. My wife is Native American. She doesn't own a gun either.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:My wife is Native American. She doesn't own a gun either. My loving god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1896%E2%80%931897?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_famine_of_1899%E2%80%931900?wprov=sfti1
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:And if there's one thing that the Soviet Union is known for, it is not having a political system known for controlling or killing anyone. And as we all know, the Soviet Union is the only form of communism that has existed and will ever exist.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
selec posted:My loving god. My apologies, I mistook your argument as referring to part of the Native American genocide since we were talking about America. Was this really the argument you wanted to get into? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:My apologies, I thought you meant within America as part of the Native American genocide. Was this really the argument you wanted to get into? I don’t care to engage with right wing propaganda, so no, I don’t want to get into it. Please peddle your sub-John Birch tier reactionary garbage to someone who hasn’t heard it before. That poo poo doesn’t work anymore. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
selec posted:I don’t care to engage with right wing propaganda, so no, I don’t want to get into it. Please peddle your sub-John Birch tier reactionary garbage to someone who hasn’t heard it before. That poo poo doesn’t work anymore. Is it your belief that the idea that the Holodomor happened is propaganda, or the idea that the Soviet Union controlled or killed any group of people is?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
we're well and truly off the topic of Current Events, gun control, etc
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Cuba seems to be the odd one out here, allowed licensed possession of firearms for valid purposes including occupational need, safety, hunting, target shooting and collecting. I would say that the rest of the world shows, in general, full prohibition is not necessary to reduce gun deaths, but strict controls definitely help and do not unreasonably infringe upon the freedoms of people with a genuine justification for firearm ownership. Nicaragua actually armed everyone at one point early on after Ortega took power, to the extent that the goal was to have an ak in every house. It caused some problems for them down the road. TheIncredulousHulk posted:How is that walking back the Mao line? It's not contradictory at all. Do you understand what the Mao line means? It appears to have been meant quite literally in the original Marx sense early on and appears to have been (re)interpreted as a more figurative, abstract statement later on E: sorry horse Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:54 on May 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
If only the starving Ukrainians had had more guns
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:It appears to have been meant quite literally in the original Marx sense early on and appears to have been (re)interpreted as a more figurative, abstract statement later on What? No it wasn't. It's not some catchy aphorism he thought up, it was part of an argument that is not in any way contradictory to the CPC implementing gun control after it won. He was talking about organized projection of political power, he wasn't talking about handing out guns to random farmers or whatever Mao posted:Communists do not fight for personal military power (they must in no circumstances do that, and let no one ever again follow the example of Chang Kuo-tao), but they must fight for military power for the Party, for military power for the people. As a national war of resistance is going on, we must also fight for military power for the nation. Where there is naivete on the question of military power, nothing whatsoever can be achieved. It is very difficult for the labouring people, who have been deceived and intimidated by the reactionary ruling classes for thousands of years, to awaken to the importance of having guns in their own hands. Now that Japanese imperialist oppression and the nation-wide resistance to it have pushed our labouring people into the arena of war, Communists should prove themselves the most politically conscious leaders in this war. Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war". Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. It kinda seems like you just heard the quote in isolation somewhere and didn't understand it
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:It's difficult to have this rooted in history because the current US police state can apply deadly force with far greater ease and precision than any example history can provide. I say again, the Feds, working with local law enforcement assassinated Fred Hampton. On american soil. They bragged about it. MLK jr's real killers were never brought to justice. And when cumulative evidence showing it wasn't the guy originally who confessed was brought in a civil trial the media called it a cash grab by the King family.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
Again, if your argument has any supposition that armed leftists are somehow in the way of meaningful gun control laws, you must be high on crack, or frothingly desperate to find excuses to punch left. Who has the power here? Who can write, pass, and enforce the laws? What if all these posters suddenly agree with your arguments and throw down their arms? What do you think will happen? What is your ideal outcome here?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:What if all these posters suddenly agree with your arguments and throw down their arms? What do you think will happen? What is your ideal outcome here? Fewer innocent people would be shot due to negligence/theft.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 04:41
|
|
