|
America is so far gone at this point you might as well give up on the idea of meaningful gun control. Like it or not, a gun represents power, and that little scrap of power represents agency and peace of mind to person facing all the chaos and uncertainty in this country. Its a self-reinforcing loop, each mass shooting introduces more uncertainty and fear and places you further from your goal. Same thing with the news' nightly doom-cast. People who hear that the crowd cheered to Ted Nugent and Trump talking about going berserk on Democrat skulls aren't thinking about surrendering their pistol, they're mulling over the idea of buying a second. If you want to talk about why it won't happen in political terms, it's because Democrats will never give up the filibuster and after midterms Republicans will enjoy a permanent majority due to voting rights being sabotaged at the state level. You have about 6 months of congressional control left, as a party, period. But lets say you passed universal background checks or raised the age for weapons. That might do some good but it won't stop most of the mass shootings because most of the guns used in these shootings were acquired legally. If you did pass a ban (you won't), if that didn't immediately kick off a civil war, sending feds to kick in doors to collect weapons would. Police, being almost universally far-right, aren't going to help further than use it as an excuse to torment communities of color. A buyback program won't work either because a gun represents more security than a check for a couple hundred dollars. People like to talk about the masturbatory fantasy of gun ownership but so is the idea of our untrustworthy government seizing property without causing massive civil unrest and making the GOP more popular than ever. Bishyaler fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 3, 2022 |
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Xombie posted:Your argument is that there will be no gun control because the GOP will win senate seats in four of: Vermont, New York, Illinois, Maryland, California, Washington, and Hawaii? My mistake, corrected my post to say majority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Yes. Anecdote isn’t data. Which is why I get annoyed when people who insinuate that gun control legislation passing [nearly] only because of racist reasons because of the Mulford act annoy me. And I noticed you hadn’t refuted/stated any specific legislation beyond the Mulford Act. You don't need to look hard to find the extremely racist history of gun control. The 1968 gun control act, the one that bars all felons from owning firearms, was specifically created to target black people. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill had this to say: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither." https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:How are the guns stopping the average person from being oppressed, are people in, let's say, the Netherlands or New Zealand more oppressed? Would you say having to do shooter drills in school is oppressive? "It can't happen here" is no longer a persuasive argument after the last 2 years of unprecedented events. The easiest way to tell that someone is arguing in favor of gun control from a position of ignorance is if their entire focus is on the AR-15. There are dozens of different variations of semi-automatic rifles that do the exact same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd like to discuss the duality of the "firearms like the AR-15 are needed to resist government tyranny" and also "the right to possess handguns shouldn't be restricted" because it seems relevant. The US Army would disagree that handguns are not adequate weapons of war. The Colt 1911 served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1985 and saw widespread use in World War 1 through the Vietnam War. The argument for the 2nd Amendment is one that includes resisting tyranny and personal self-defense, and that latter shouldn't even be in dispute since the police have repeatedly argued (and won) in court that they have no duty to protect people in danger.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Expect expecting a group of civilians in era of tanks, drones, radios, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc. to defeat an army it is a guarantee the army will win. A government willing to wage indescriminate conventional warfare against an insurgent population is a government which will prove the insurgents right. Imagine how many people would still support the US Government if they waged drone warfare here in the same manner they do overseas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:4) the populace is functionally disarmed already and any inclination otherwise is wishful thinking One theme that tends to follow these discussions is the doublethink that the populace has so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable, but simultaneously so poorly armed that any thought of self-defense against right wing militias or a tyrannical government would be a fools errand. It’s a round-about way to argue that the state should hold a monopoly on violence, which probably isn’t a great thing to argue considering the US government’s track record and that the GOP will enjoy a permanent majority very soon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
Xombie posted:How in the hell is this "doublethink"? Terrible violence isn't a synonym for self-defense. Going down in a hail of bullets is terrible violence but not "self-defense". Violence is a pretty important component of self-defense. The state has a monopoly on violence *now*, you shouldn't be arguing that should be the case going forward unless you believe a GOP one-party state will be an ethical steward of that violence. The state has had tanks, fighter jets, and nukes in every conflict since the end of World War 2 and they've still fared pretty lovely in quite a few of them. First off, the idea that the US government would use nukes on its own soil is insane, and if you're talking about a traditional insurgency, they can't really go leveling entire cities with tanks or fighter jets either, unless they feel like doing free PR for the insurgents. Arguing the odds is just silly because if we find ourselves in armed conflict with the government, its because we already weighed our options and getting shot at was better than the alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:There are so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable between members of the populace, but that same armed populace has no chance against the might of the state. These can't simultaneously be true, sorry. The US government is not some unstoppable juggernaut and the US military has always fared poorly against insurgencies. The odds are even more dire for the government if the insurgents have the backing of a foreign power.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Not dying is a pretty important component of "self-defense". It is in fact the primary component. "Not dying" isn't a certainty when you drive to the store for groceries, much less any conflict in the history of forever. The local police can put down an insurgency? The local police here couldn't handle a ragtag band of the local right-wing militia, and chances are the militia and the police are the same people. Same for more than a few of the national guard. Waco was a PR nightmare that changed the entire way the ATF does business, Ruby Ridge was ONE MAN holding off 6 US Marshalls, and during the Bundy Standoff the government was reluctant to even engage and most of them walked away with a slap on the wrist. Regardless I'm not talking about a scenario where 10-20 of the local wing nuts decide to make a statement. I'm talking about large uprisings or secessions. Xombie posted:The US government absolutely is an unstoppable juggernaut within the US. If you're doing it within the US, you aren't a scrappy insurgency, you're just a person breaking the law, and get to be treated like someone breaking the law. Please look up the record for groups getting into standoffs with the US government in the past 30 years. You are aware that the GOP is about to permanently takeover your government, right? And that they'll be busy collapsing human rights during the next few years? Leftists often say that liberals will attempt to preserve their comfortable lives in the face of a fascist takeover, but I didn't think anyone would come out and admit that they'd never consider fighting back.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I'm sorry but you have completely lost track of your own point here with all the red herrings you are trying to throw out. You were criticizing people for saying that too many guns means inevitable violence but that self-defense against the government is impossible. I stated that these two things are not equivalent, because getting into a violent interaction is not necessarily "self-defense". Now you're talking about how dangerous it is to get groceries? The point is when conflicts happen, and especially in self-defense situations, people aren't looking at the fight and saying to themselves "Unless I have a 100% chance of surviving this, I'm not going to bother". When did I say that me and my buddies rifles were a local militia? For one, I'm not part of right-wing anything. Secondly, there are actual local militias and they vastly outnumber the active SWAT teams. I don't think you fully appreciate how well armed the right-wing is in this country and how law enforcement and Trumpers talking about insurrection are the exact same people. "The government would never let you do it" rings a bit hollow if you're right-wing. A little over a year ago we watched the far right in this country walk right into the Capitol with the cops' help while they ransacked the place. Only one person was shot, and most got a slap on the wrist. No organizers have been held responsible. How many empires throughout history got high on their own supply until hubris caught up with them and they collapsed under their own weight? Considering that we're on a speed run to economic collapse, climate disaster, and a fascist coup; you'll likely get to see massive shifts in how this country looks and operates within the next 10-20 years. What you were taught in school is a lie, we do not have the perfect method of government and our institutions are crumbling before our very eyes. Anyone still preaching "it can't happen here" after witnessing the last 2 years should be laughed out of the room.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Xombie posted:If you don't survive, you didn't defend yourself. You lost. If a community of 100 people are being attacked, one dies, the other 99 who survived aren't throwing up their hands and saying "Aw shucks we lost!". I like how you're discussing how nobody can slip by the governments' defenses as we're hearing reports on 1/6 how the national guard was ordered to stand down and the Capitol police were actually helping the rioters. Regardless of how often you want to call government fallibility a "fantasy", its very much a real thing and recent events have done nothing but highlight that fact. Frankly its impressive you're trying to argue this in the face of a Supreme Court takeover and the future Congress takeover due to compromised voting rights.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Xombie posted:You can't seem to name a conflict with the US government on US soil where they didn't lose. I can name plenty of minor conflicts which completely altered government policy, in some cases completely neutering the agency like the ATF post-Waco. That's a huge victory. The GOP is about to permanently control our institutions, 1/6 was part of that for better or for worse. If that's a loss I'd hate to see what a victory looks like. Your entire argument is built on a foundation of "it hasn't happened so it won't ever happen", which is, in and of itself fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Do you consider this support for "we're going to win against the government with small arms" or "you win against the government when they allow you to"? The latter, but they could both be true had the situation been a bit different. Like Mulva said, there wasn't much between the rioters and a whole bunch of congress critters. I have no idea what the government looks like with a bunch of missing congress people and emergency elections, but I imagine it comes with quite a bit of chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I sure wish the gun nuts would make up their mind on if a AR-15 and other military style semi-auto rifles are a lethal necessity that will let them stand up to the full weight of the entire army, or absolutely no different than a hand-gun and we're only banning it 'cause it looks scary. I sure wish liberals would stop trying to empower the government right before it tips into the GOP's hands forever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Stating "there are tanks" doesn't create tanks. The tanks are there whether you admit them or not. It isn't Schroedinger's cat. You know there are guides on how to handle insurgencies and you don't attempt to brutally crush them with indiscriminate violence, right? It's pretty disappointing that people could see exactly why Trump sending a bunch of blackmask Feds in unmarked vans to disappear Portlanders in 2020 was a giant misstep, but somehow think that the public will react positively toward the government if tanks are firing shells past the local retirement home. Heck, even The Troubles in Ireland didn't really get their start until the government was heavy handed and tipped public favor toward the IRA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The dumbest part of the "disarming the population is the first step towards oppression" is gun owners in this country are overwhelmingly supporters of authoritarianism. Yes, the right-wingers with all the guns are about to oppress a bunch of people who don't believe in guns, probably with the future GOP governments tacit approval. This is not the own you think it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I'm just going to repeat myself here: I can repeat myself too: There is significant overlap between the insurrectionist right, the police, and the national guard. The FBI utterly failed to prevent 1/6 and they were advertising that on the open internet like Coachella. We can go round and round on this forever, so its probably about time we dropped it. Re: Ireland - I'm talking about the late 60s, early 70s
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Yes it is. It's why I made the post. Statistics don't map neatly onto people. You made the post to jab at the authoritarian right by saying "Look they have guns and they don't fight tyranny!". And I'm saying, like others have in this thread, that the people with guns often oppress those who don't. Which is exactly what's about to happen in this country, or is already happening if you count all the political violence by the far-right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Xombie posted:This has absolutely no bearing on their capability to put down whatever insurrection you believe leftists will mount. It also doesn't make you more likely to succeed, it makes you more likely to fail. I wasn't only talking about leftist insurrections, the right is far better positioned to use violence to get what they want, but they'll have control of the government soon enough through Democrat inaction and voter suppression so its a moot point. The people in 1/6 lost? Not a single organizer was punished, the rubes on the ground barely got a slap on the wrist, Trump is still living his best life, and they've made the Democrats look weaker than ever. Sure they didn't manage to reinstall Trump into the WH, but they had a great trial-run for future action and they barely suffered any consequences for it. If by some miracle they don't mop the floor with you guys in 2024, they're going to do it again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:
Oh they arrested the FBI informant? Pack it up guys, Republicans have learned their lesson. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Literally hundreds have been arrested. Which way is far away from your earlier completely incorrect claim that not a single organizer was punished. Hundreds of *attendees* have been arrested. Not hundreds of organizers. Nobody gives a poo poo if generic rank and file Trumpers get their slap on the wrist. Bishyaler fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1481788200368492544?s=20&t=eQfAKa3HowcuS-xVjZlHBg Okay, so a year and a half has resulted in 16 people charged (not convicted), none of which were in congress, and not Trump. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The entire investigation has led to hundreds of charges and hundreds of sentences. At this point, I'm quite convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. Please see my previous post where I said the rank and file Trumpers don't matter. They're a dime a dozen, they're going to get a slap on the wrist and be sent on their merry way. We're way off topic anyway, but go on high-fiving the Democrat DOJ for their utterly impotent response to 1/6, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:That argument doesn't stand up to the data as I've already posted. It's the weakest argument for gun ownership. The conservative justices and reasonable arguments aren't exactly bedfellows either. Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! If rights were withheld because of bumblefucks who abuse it, we wouldn't have any rights left. And as far as I'm concerned as long as police have a Supreme Court precedent that says they have zero obligation to defend your life, and plenty of real world examples illustrating exactly that thing happening, you can't fault people for wanting the capacity to defend themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Next up: not requiring drivers licenses or car insurance for everyone that believes they're a perfect driver. Go ahead and mandate training and licensing for firearms just like a vehicle, I wholeheartedly support it. Car insurance, just like health insurance, is a complete scam intended to squeeze people for as much profit as possible while outright preventing or delivering the minimum amount of service. It also wouldn't do poo poo to stop mass shootings if applied to firearm ownership.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:This is exactly why we everyone should be permitted to drink and drive. Just because some people get into accidents doesn't mean that I will get into an accident. If we tried to make it illegal to do things just because some people doing those things killed themselves or others then we wouldn't be able to do anything! We've already discovered that you're arguing from a position of hypocrisy but now this bad faith garbage? Make sure you tear down that straw man real good for everyone to see, gun ownership is exactly the same as drunk driving you see.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:You're literally arguing that gun death statistics don't apply to you because you're real safe and careful-like. No public policy should ever be passed to reduce the danger that guns pose to the public because you're special. Yeah, that's how rights and privileges work. If I obey the rules I get to keep them, and people who abuse them lose them. Our whole goddamn society is built around this concept.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The same poster thinks owning a shotgun while saying that it should be harder to buy semi-auto handguns and rifles is hypocrisy, so I don't think logic is their strong point. All we need to do for safe gun ownership is move our arm slightly between each shot with a weapon that can strike several people at once? Why didn't someone tell me sooner!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I didn't buy a magicbox to make my house safer, I bought a dangerbox to shoot birds for fun. I hope this helps? I'm glad the line in the sand is being drawn based on the thoughts in your head prior to purchase. By the way, murdering animals for fun is absolutely psychotic. Seek help.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Xombie posted:This "political reality" isn't any different for any topic where you're proposing a solution from the left. I fail to see why it's a trump card for gun control when it isn't for any other topic of conversation. Like Mulva, if you don't actually like the topic of gun control, no one is forcing you to be part of it. But if all you have to add to the discussion is the thought-terminating cliché of "America is pretty conservative", what exactly do you want people to discuss with you? It isn't actually up to anyone here to "sell" the idea of gun control, because none of us are actually politicians. Mulva seems to like the topic of gun control just fine, and his posts have been operating more in the realm of reality than the virtue signaling clowns that want to circlejerk about how much smarter they are than a gun-owner. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:26
|
|