Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-20 04:35am

https://newrepublic.com/article/154931/ ... -keep-guns
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 Minority 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.
Noted pedophilia fan Tucker Carlson's rhetoric particularly stands out- he appears to accuse Beto O'Rourke of advocating a civil war and inciting violence for, I guess, "provoking" the Reich-wing to violence. I guess this is the domestic terrorist equivalent of "Why are you hitting yourself?"
“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.
And yet it is the Democrats who are apparently being extremist, and need to "compromise" more with the people who are literally prepared to shoot us to preserve their "right" to be able to shoot us. They'll murder their fellow countrymen to maintain their "right" to be able to murder their fellow countrymen. And they wonder why some of us are leery about the idea of them having easy access to deadly weapons.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-09-20 06:01am

Yes, the alt-right is a lot like an abusive spouse, whining they are being "forced" to evil, violent action. Which may or may not be coincidental with their tolerance for male sexual offenders ranging from inappropriate touching to full on rape being dismissed as not important or lies.

Of course there's going to be violence if we take the guns away from paranoid, self-righteous, extremists. The question is whether it's better to tolerate the current mass shootings over a long stretch of time or the brief paroxysm of violence that will come with forcibly removing the "toys" from people who have demonstrated they can not be trusted with them.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13302
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Lonestar » 2019-09-20 03:51pm

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.
"I'm going to steal your personal property and if you don't comply I'm sending racist goons who support the oligarch-controlled state to send you to prison"

"I'll fight back if you try"

"wtf that's a death threat"

there I boiled the entire exchange down for you.

I get that you don't see it, going by your obstreperous posts in the elections thread, but that's it reduced to it's most basic components.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6114
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by madd0ct0r » 2019-09-20 04:28pm

Lonestar wrote:
2019-09-20 03:51pm
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.
"I'm going to steal your personal property and if you don't comply I'm sending racist goons who support the oligarch-controlled state to send you to prison"

"I'll fight back if you try"

"wtf that's a death threat"

there I boiled the entire exchange down for you.

I get that you don't see it, going by your obstreperous posts in the elections thread, but that's it reduced to it's most basic components.
Fighting back with guns is a death threat Lonestar. I assume you get that too?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-09-20 04:40pm

I do have to laugh that spending millions (if not billions) on a buyback program can somehow be labelled "modest."

Seriously, it's worth writing off the article right there. That's just to buy back AR-15s which is, as noted, a massively popular rifle. But we go further with "Second, they pass a federal law that requires mandatory buybacks of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles" and you're talking millions of guns, of ranging values. Of which I'm sure the govt. will pay "top dollar." NOTE: Sarcasm.

Meanwhile, I'm sure even though something like a CX4 (a pistol caliber carbine) and models like it which can be bought cheaper than anything other than the most bare-bones AR-15 derivative, would either be included as they just grab everything or ignored and just kind of left there to be used. I mean, it's not like the Columbine shooters used a POS Hi-Point 9mm or anything....

Yes, let's fight the NRA on THAT rather than spend the millions needed to overhaul the background check system and mental health reporting, something of which moderate Americans are already on board for. In fact, even many conservatives find themselves in support of (at least) federal background checks, a swelling of which started after churches were getting shot up.

Whole thing is moot though because even if Dems take back everything, their gun control measures are doomed to failure since they'll cave in fear of losing the lead they just won. Liberals forget how badly the Brady Bill costs Democrats and people literally thought the world was going to turn into Judge Dredd. The Democrats haven't forgotten.

EDIT: oh, and be prepared for MORE minority splits as they rightfully view Democrats as only caring about "The White Gun Problem."

User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 20244
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by LadyTevar » 2019-09-20 08:59pm

The New York Times

Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers

The gun manufacturer said the market had an adequate supply of sporting rifles and it would focus on its military and law enforcement contracts instead.


By David Yaffe-Bellany
Published Sept. 19, 2019
Updated Sept. 20, 2019, 11:03 a.m. ET


The gun maker Colt said on Thursday that it would effectively suspend production of sporting rifles, including the AR-15, for the civilian market but continue to manufacture rifles for government weapons contracts.

In a statement on its website, Colt emphasized that the company remained “committed to the Second Amendment,” but cited market conditions for its decision.

“Over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity,” Dennis Veilleux, the company’s chief executive, said in the statement. “Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

Colt’s decision is unlikely to make it more difficult for gun buyers to get their hands on powerful semiautomatic weapons, said Timothy D. Lytton, an expert on the gun industry at Georgia State University.

“If there’s market demand,” he said, “I’m sure there are other companies with the capacity to fill it.”

The AR-15, a military-style weapon, has been used in several recent mass shootings, including in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; and Parkland, Fla.

Major retailers and other businesses linked to the gun industry have faced growing public pressure to take steps to curb gun violence in response to recent mass shootings. After a shooting in August at one of its stores in El Paso, Walmart said it would stop selling ammunition that could be used in military-style assault rifles.

Colt did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. But in the statement, Mr. Veilleux emphasized that the company, whose products are available at more than 4,000 dealers across the country, would continue to manufacture handguns for the consumer market.

The financial effect of the decision is unclear. Colt, a private company, does not list sales for its sporting rifles on its website.

While Colt has framed it as an economic decision, Mr. Lytton said, the public pressure may have influenced the company. He noted that Colt was based in Hartford, Conn., not far from the site of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“The mass shootings are probably making the company a little bit brand-sensitive,” Mr. Lytton said. “They’re probably feeling a kind of pressure or heat that manufacturers in other parts of the country may not be.”

The news that Colt would stop producing rifles for consumers was reported last week in an industry blog, The Truth About Guns, which cited an email the RSR Group, a firearms distributor, had sent to retailers saying Colt had informed it of the policy change. A spokeswoman for the RSR Group declined to comment.

And last week, a Colt marketing executive told the National Rifle Association’s publication Shooting Illustrated that the company had seen “a pretty sharp decline in rifle sales.”

“We listen to our customers,” the Colt executive, Paul Spitale, told Shooting Illustrated.

Colt is the manufacturer most closely associated with the AR-15, a lightweight, semiautomatic weapon. The Colt Armalite Rifle-15 Sporter hit the market in the early 1960s as the first civilian version of the military’s M16 rifle.

Over the years, however, the AR-15 has become a catchall for a range of weapons that look and operate similarly, including the Remington Bushmaster, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and the Springfield Armory Saint.
Image
Librium Arcana, Where Gamers Play!
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-21 12:11am

Lonestar wrote:
2019-09-20 03:51pm
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.
"I'm going to steal your personal property and if you don't comply I'm sending racist goons who support the oligarch-controlled state to send you to prison"

"I'll fight back if you try"

"wtf that's a death threat"

there I boiled the entire exchange down for you.

I get that you don't see it, going by your obstreperous posts in the elections thread, but that's it reduced to it's most basic components.
So I gather you support pedophile and rape apologist Tucker Carlson when he says that a civil war over guns would be the fault of Democrats (and implicitly, that the murder of public servants in the lawful execution of their duty would be justified)?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-09-21 12:26am

The AR-15, a military-style weapon, has been used in several recent mass shootings, including in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; and Parkland, Fla.
These comments continue to be hilarious from the outside, but can see why gun nutters are scared people this uninformed are (continuing) writing about the debate. It's no different than saying "The Jeep Wrangler, a military style vehicle, <blah blah>."

Protip: using the phrase "military style" is basically a red flag for "I know jack and shit about this topic."
He noted that Colt was based in Hartford, Conn., not far from the site of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
Read: He noted that it's a good idea to bring up an incident from 7 years ago because it's likely it influenced their decision and totally NOT because bringing up Sandy Hook is as great way to illicit an emotional response. We got Gun Control Buzzword Bingo up in here. I feel old though since "Columbine" and "Trenchcoat Mafia" have fallen out of vogue.
Colt is the manufacturer most closely associated with the AR-15, a lightweight, semiautomatic weapon. The Colt Armalite Rifle-15 Sporter hit the market in the early 1960s as the first civilian version of the military’s M16 rifle.
Holy shit, some accurate info. Not bothering to discuss: Why is a gun that has been available for 50 years an issue only (fairly) recently?
Over the years, however, the AR-15 has become a catchall for a range of weapons that look and operate similarly, including the Remington Bushmaster, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and the Springfield Armory Saint.
And like a thousand other long gun models. Shit like the Mini-14 (and even the CX4) which even our commie-gun-grabbing hippies in Canada (last I bothered to check, mind you) couldn't be bothered to ban. Though IIRC, the MURDER MACHINE black polymer-frames are banned, but not GOOD AND HONEST wood stock models.

NOTE: I find nothing about needless deaths funny. But it's hard not to laugh when one side is consistently like "b-b-b-b-bUT MUH GUNZS" and the other side is like "Derp, what is guns?"

I think this whole thing is ACTUALLY Colt being truthful in saying "The market is saturated, so the political heat isn't worth the money to be made." Leaving out "especially since Colt's are way too pricey considering the (lack of) quality difference between other manufacturers." And this is coming from a guy whose 1911 (a ruthless MILITARY STYLE!@#!@#$!@#$@#!$ gun) is a Colt because, sure yea, Kimbers and nice and all, but you buy a fucking COLT 1911 if you're a real Murrican!
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-21 12:11am
So I gather you support pedophile and rape apologist Tucker Carlson when he says that a civil war over guns would be the fault of Democrats (and implicitly, that the murder of public servants in the lawful execution of their duty would be justified)?
You go, buddy! Say he has a tiny dick as well! Oh OH, and something about "basement dwelling"!

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-21 12:28am

madd0ct0r wrote:
2019-09-20 04:28pm
Lonestar wrote:
2019-09-20 03:51pm
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.
"I'm going to steal your personal property and if you don't comply I'm sending racist goons who support the oligarch-controlled state to send you to prison"

"I'll fight back if you try"

"wtf that's a death threat"

there I boiled the entire exchange down for you.

I get that you don't see it, going by your obstreperous posts in the elections thread, but that's it reduced to it's most basic components.
Fighting back with guns is a death threat Lonestar. I assume you get that too?
Yes, he has effectively just said that he believes that murdering law enforcement (and politicians?) attempting to enforce gun regulations is self-defense.

He's also lying through his teeth. The most I've seen attributed to Beto is a proposal to fine those who don't comply. The claim that he is planning mass arrests of gun owners is pure hysteria, and given the context, it is pretty blatantly a lie told to incite/justify terrorism under a pretense of self-defense. Keep in mind that Beto O'Rourke has been receiving death threats from the far Right over his proposals on gun reform- that is the context in which Lonestar is arguing that those threats are justified self-defense.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-21 12:38am

TheFeniX wrote:
2019-09-21 12:26am
You go, buddy! Say he has a tiny dick as well! Oh OH, and something about "basement dwelling"!
Like all cowards with no real argument, you fall back on personal ridicule and abuse. Pathetic. You imply I am engaging in ad hominem while doing so yourself. And because attacking me on what I actually said isn't sufficiently damage, you feel free to put some words in my mouth. Of course, I expect you'll get away with it, and everyone will take your side, because everyone here "knows" that's what TRR does, because everyone here says that's what TRR does, because everyone here knows that's what TRR does, because everyone here says that's what TRR does... So much for any pretense of honest debate standards this board ever claimed to have.

Oh by the way, calling Tucker Carlson a pedophile and rape apologist isn't just petty name calling, as you appear to be implying: https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2&t=168096

That's the kind of man justifying a civil war for gun "rights"- the kind who believes women (and little girls) and minorities don't have any rights. Whose' "rights" exactly does he want those guns to protect? Answer: conservative white mens', same as most gun nuts.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-21 01:03am

In other news, the Canadian PM just announced an assault weapons ban, and there were no terrorist attacks, no mass arrests, no sudden declaration that Trudeau was dictator for life, and no civil war.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-09-21 01:13am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-21 12:38am
Like all cowards with no real argument, you fall back on personal ridicule and abuse. Pathetic. You imply I am engaging in ad hominem while doing so yourself. And because attacking me on what I actually said isn't sufficiently damage, you feel free to put some words in my mouth. Of course, I expect you'll get away with it, and everyone will take your side, because everyone here "knows" that's what TRR does, because everyone here says that's what TRR does, because everyone here knows that's what TRR does, because everyone here says that's what TRR does... So much for any pretense of honest debate standards this board ever claimed to have.
I don't keep up with your status as SDN's resident whipping post. I don't give a shit. Had I remembered your massive victim complex you cling to, which I've noticed you (generally) earn by spewing vitriol, I might have backed off (or really just laid in harder). I'm honestly impressed with how long you've kept it up. As it stands, I treated you like I treat anyone else who posts something hilariously useless to the thread. However, unlike you: my post trailed a rebuke of something relevant.

But you wilting like a Southern Bell in the Alabama heat when confronted after implying that Lonestar supports pedophilia is just..... a whole other level of brutal hilarity. If Lonestar had been like "Carlson! Fuck yer! guy is right about 'many' things (hint hint)," I might be less dismissive of your "argument."

In the future: if I respond to you, you can be sure I'm attacking what you wrote in what I quoted. I honestly could not care less about other shit you've posted. I live in the moment... like a shark.... or Hollywood Producer.
Oh by the way, calling Tucker Carlson a pedophile and rape apologist isn't just petty name calling, as you appear to be implying: https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2&t=168096
I am well aware of how much a POS Carlson is. I am not aware of why you think implying Lonestar supports pedophilia is an "argument." Or how even that would be relevant. If.... I don't know, Jared from Subway said "gunz 'r bad," I assume you'd be like "supporting gun control means you support a child rapist."? Or how I AM the one shitposting.. since you decided to just turn this into the "woe is me, but look CARLSON A BAD!" which anyone with a sense of morality already knew.
That's the kind of man justifying a civil war for gun "rights"- the kind who believes women (and little girls) and minorities don't have any rights. Whose' "rights" exactly does he want those guns to protect? Answer: conservative white mens', same as most gun nuts.
"Scared white liberals want to protect other white people from scary looking guns." Sorry, the way it shakes for me is that the current Gun Control movement is... pretty fuckin' racist.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 20992
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-09-21 01:31am

Your string of personal smears aside (because let's be honest, that's just par for the course on this board), let's address a few points:

1. I did not say that Lonestar supports pedophilia. But at the same time, people are judged, fairly or not, by the company that they keep, and the people they league themselves with. And Carlson's vices are relevant here- it is often those who most victimize others who scream loudest about how their "rights" are being violated, as Carlson does- a man who's down with raping little girls shouting about how murdering politicians or cops and starting a fucking civil war is the fault of gun-control advocates because its all to defend gun rights. Just like the Confederate fuckers screamed about how they were being oppressed when people tried to even modestly limit the spread of slavery. So I think that Lonestar and others would do well to think about the company they keep, and who's "rights" the leading gun advocates are interested in protecting. Because it sure as fuck ain't the poor, or minorities, or women, or rape victims, or political dissidents. The NRA and its media and Congressional lapdogs are overwhelmingly the Alt. Reich's loyal creatures, and that informs who's "rights" they want these guns to protect.

That's just a fact, and you whining about how gun control advocates are the real racists just makes you sound like an Alt. Reichist screaming about how the SJWs are persecuting them and white men are the real victims of oppression.

Edit: Frankly, I don't get what the hell you're talking about with "gun control advocates are racists". It seems completely out of left field, an almost random smear.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-09-21 02:20am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-21 01:31am
1. I did not say that Lonestar supports pedophilia. But at the same time, people are judged, fairly or not, by the company that they keep, and the people they league themselves with. And Carlson's vices are relevant here-
"I'm not saying he's a pedo, but here's more BLAH BLAH fucking blah about someone who (may) have similar arguments on a topic, obvious implication are implicated."
The NRA and its media and Congressional lapdogs are overwhelmingly the Alt. Reich's loyal creatures, and that informs who's "rights" they want these guns to protect.
Man, if only there were people concerned with property rights who WEREN'T lifetime NRA and GOP members. The idea that people have opinions WITHOUT being influenced by <group/person you hate> is just foreign to you.
That's just a fact, and you whining about how gun control advocates are the real racists just makes you sound like an Alt. Reichist screaming about how the SJWs are persecuting them and white men are the real victims of oppression.
"Saying X makes you a Y" is just like.. your BattleCry isn't it? You can't make a case without comparing someone to <group you shouldn't like>.

Crazy thought: not just ONE side is capable of being racist. Maybe you were 5 when it happened, but I was in High School when the whole SuperPredators comment was made. U.S. Gun Control measures are historically pretty racist. And yea, I see an issue when, back in around '94: the DNC only gave a shit about the AWB when violence was spilling into white communities and now when white school are getting shot up, we see another push against rifles, whereas minorities are upwards of 4 times more likely to be killed... and by handguns.

You actually CAN be racist, but NOT a "I hate <x>" type of racist. Crazy! And minorities are actually picking up on this. They aren't buying up the bullshit from the DNC. They rightfully feel betrayed by the gun control movement out of liberals because it isn't AR-15s filling their caskets and the whole "Oh, you care NOW about guns" is a pretty legitimate concern.

Because the DNC can, and has always, thrown minorities under the bus to appeal to white people.

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3736
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TimothyC » 2019-09-21 02:28am

LadyTevar wrote:
2019-09-20 08:59pm
Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers
the only thing this does is make it so that "AR-15"s leave the market. The patent expired in 1977, and the Federal AWB protections from clones being made expired when the law hit the sunset provision in 2004. This functionally changes nothing, except cutting into potential sales by Colt. Now they may feel that the PR from not selling them outweighs the sales of the weapons, but that remains to be seen.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-21 12:11am
So I gather you support pedophile and rape apologist Tucker Carlson when he says that a civil war over guns would be the fault of Democrats (and implicitly, that the murder of public servants in the lawful execution of their duty would be justified)?
Not going to lie, but it took more than one reading of this line to fully get what you were trying to say. It would have been clearer if you had added "The" or "That" in front of "pedophile". And before you get all up in a tizzy over this, remember XKCD 1860
Image
Title text: You're saying that the responsibility for avoiding miscommunication lies entirely with the listener, not the speaker, which explains why you haven't been able to convince anyone to help you down from that wall.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-09-21 01:03am
In other news, the Canadian PM just announced an assault weapons ban, and there were no terrorist attacks, no mass arrests, no sudden declaration that Trudeau was dictator for life, and no civil war.
Having just taken a look at a news article, Mr Trudeau only said that he'd pass one if his government wins in October. This is the same as Candidate Bob's statement at the debate last week, only he is the party leader now and Bob isn't.

Given the issues with the Canadian Firearms Registry I expect that non-compliance would be high (for example, in New York, the compliance rate with a semi-automatic rifle registry was reliably estimated at just four percent).
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 6954
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Raw Shark » 2019-09-21 07:44am

Jesus F Christ, TRR. Guys like you make being a responsible leftist shooter who would gladly resist a domestic neo-Nazi uprising a headache.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker

User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3828
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by loomer » 2019-09-21 07:49am

What's the old saying? 'If you meet one asshole, they're the asshole. If you meet nothing but assholes, you're the asshole'?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6114
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by madd0ct0r » 2019-09-21 08:28am

I'm with him on this one.

I don't fap to private property concepts, I don't think a gun is useful for self defense and I don't think a minority of people keeping them as shooting range toys is worth the level of getting shot that the USA suffers. I DO think they have a purpose in farming and wilderness areas, and should remain available and licensed for those purposes.
Switzerland seems to handle it fine, with a very very polite society. The USA is demonstrably not handling it fine, and if toddlers starting wounding each other you take away their toys.

On private property:
If there's a farm disease outbreak by you, your farm animals get culled and you get compensated. If there's a earthquake and your house is needed to shelter people, it gets requisitioned. If I openly combined materials I purchase legally into a device intended to maim the public, it would be taken away from me. Private property as an absolute right may be a philosophical requirement of the Chicago School, but it neither reflects reality nor a usefully functional society. There are always caveats.


EDIT: that said, I think it might be worth examinging who benefits from electrifying this social fault line. Who benefits from a USA divided and infighting? Who benefits from stoking fears of civil war?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 971
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Zwinmar » 2019-09-21 08:40am

Many of the talking heads and politicians really have no clue when it comes to talking about gun. They have a knee jerk reaction and start spouting off using buzz words that I am not convinced someone didn't make up to just mess with them.

If you take a look at the actual 1934 ban it is simply ridiculous and arbitrary made by people with no experience let alone asked an expert on the subject. For instance: If someone finds a Maxim gun, and can prove it was used at the Somme, this is something that should be in a museum, however, there is no provision to allow anyone to take ownership..it must be destroyed, or rather, some ATF ass will add it to his collection. There is no other recourse.

Here, a timeline of gun legislation.

People, in general, do not have a problem with the background checks. It is all the other arbitrary things that make no sense that they have a problem with. If I cut .5 inches off the end of my hypothetical 18.5 inch shotgun barrel, then all it takes is a Fed to have a short measuring tape and I can be convicted for having an illegal shotgun, it is that arbitrary.

What it comes down to is that people have no clue what they are talking about and they make no effort to learn. Many of you laugh at flat earthers, for good reason I might add, and it is the same here, this willful ignorance. Being scared of something that they have no clue about. Seriously? "Full Semi-Automatic?" what the fuck.

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6114
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by madd0ct0r » 2019-09-21 09:11am

I don't believe there is a level of technical understanding or langauge where you would accpet the argument.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-09-21 10:02am

Part of the problem in the US is that the non-gun owners (and even some of the gun-owners) are fucking fed up with being at risk of getting shot while going about their daily lives. There is no way to opt-out of the risks. If the risks of owning/using guns was limited solely to those who choose to own guns that would be one thing, but it's not - everyone is at risk.

Eventually, those who don't feel a need to arm themselves are going to get tired of the situation and start voting to take action. Actions that I'm certain the gun owners/users aren't going to like. But there are twice as many non-gun-owners in the US as gun owners, so in a direct vote the gun-owners are highly likely to lose.

Arguing "you don't understand the technical details" isn't going to be an effective argument when people are fearing that they and their family are going to be maimed or killed without warning. To those folks a blanket ban starts to look more and more appealing. Or even just a ban on "scary looking guns" because they're not operating fully on logic, there's a lot of emotion driving them.

Contrary to what most 2nd amendment supporters seem to think the constitution IS mutable. It is entirely possible to add another amendment to modify the second. I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.

The smartest tactic is for the gun-owners to compromise with the non-gun-owners before the latter get completely fed up and/or driven to panic. But by golly AMURICUNTS are going to stand up for their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS! Because "compromise" is now seen as a dirty word and the action itself as a sign of weakness and moral depravity.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 971
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Zwinmar » 2019-09-21 10:21am

I know the constitution is mutable. A big part of the conflict is the feeling that gun control activist just take and take and take, they give nothing. Work around and try to be sneaky, sure..but actually come to a true compromise..nope.

It's not the technical details, its the basics they don't know and refuse to learn. It's the banning of cosmetic crap that really does nothing to the function while daddys gun with the nice wooden furniture is the exact same gun, just without the scary synthetic stock. They get treated like a joke because of it.

It's the saying that "cops have the right to go home every night to their family" so they can kill the people they are supposed to protecting, while at the same time vilifying Vets who have received far more training and have far better discipline that the same said Cops.

They want to change the second amendment..then I say, go for it, but do it the right way, call for a Constitutional Convention. Don't just pick and choose what they want to believe, dont try to weasel things into law that a currently blatantly unconstitutional as it stands.

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-09-21 10:40am

Zwinmar wrote:
2019-09-21 10:21am
I know the constitution is mutable. A big part of the conflict is the feeling that gun control activist just take and take and take, they give nothing. Work around and try to be sneaky, sure..but actually come to a true compromise..nope.
I'm going to go into Devil's Advocate mode (meaning these are NOT my personal views) here and take on the role of the anti-gun crowd:

The "gun control activists" would counter that they have a right NOT to be shot, to not fear that their kids will be murdered at school, their families murdered at church/synagogue/mosque/atheist weekend activity of going to the movies or a mall, to not fear that they themselves will be murdered at work or the grocery store or driving down the road. The generation that grew up with active shooter drills at school are NOT going to be as tolerant as the prior generation of arguments for gun ownership. Allowing the gun owners to set the rules has clearly not worked so it's time for a different tactic. These people don't care about your technical specifications. The inner city folks who know people who have been shot in their beds while asleep because someone on the street is having a gun battle want handguns banned because they fear being shot in their beds while asleep. People mowed down at school or a music festival by AR-15/AK-47/look-a-like long guns want those guns banned. Again, you're trying a rational approach with people are who afraid for their lives. From their viewpoint, YOU'RE being irrational by not taking action to protect human life and limb.
It's not the technical details, its the basics they don't know and refuse to learn.
They don't want to learn it, they just want to feel safe again. Or safe for the first time, depending on who they are and where they live. As far as they're concerned, compromise is not banning ALL guns.

The two sides are entrenched and not willing to give on either side. It's characteristic of gun extremists that they think they are the only ones being asked to compromise on their desires. They aren't. Your camp is asking that the extreme gun-control advocates compromise by allowing gun ownership at all.
They get treated like a joke because of it.
Those "jokes" outnumber your camp 2:1 As I said, if it ever comes to a direct one person/one vote situation your side is going to lose.
Don't just pick and choose what they want to believe, dont try to weasel things into law that a currently blatantly unconstitutional as it stands.
Funny... the 2nd amendment seems to be the only one held to be absolute. Free speech has limitations, for example, as does religion. Why is that?

Actually, of course, in fact there have always been limitations on the second amendment, in the past gun ownership/use in many places was far more restricted than at present. It's in recent decades that controls have been eroded even as the death tolls have risen. To which I can only say WTF?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15505
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Gandalf » 2019-09-21 10:53am

Broomstick wrote:
2019-09-21 10:02am
Eventually, those who don't feel a need to arm themselves are going to get tired of the situation and start voting to take action. Actions that I'm certain the gun owners/users aren't going to like. But there are twice as many non-gun-owners in the US as gun owners, so in a direct vote the gun-owners are highly likely to lose.
Do your numbers account for scenarios where one person has a gun, but others in the same dwelling might be stakeholders in it?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 971
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Zwinmar » 2019-09-21 11:59am

Of course you have the right to not be shot (using the you here for an 'in general" not a specific). Everyone has the right to be safe in their person.

The gun is the great equalizer. The average 4'8" woman stand no real chance against a male 6' tall and 200 lbs without one, and you cannot rely on the cops to be their when needed, even 2 minutes away is too long.

As for the fear; since 9/11 the US has been nothing but afraid of everything, going to great lengths to 'feel' safe but not actually addressing the issues. I can speculate on why these...beings..shoot up the innocent but I do not know why, to my knowledge there has been no real study as to why they did it. I do know that if I were there I would have made my best effort to either stop then, or barring that, help others (a story I would rather not get into though if you want the details pm).

Personally, I think in order to own a gun you should have to go through a course similar to the hunters safety course with the caveat that you go through, do the course and get certified, this does not mean that you own a gun, just that you went through the course. Then when you go in to buy a gun, you do the normal background check, provide your ID and the certification and your good.

One of the large problems is that because I am a Vet some have claimed that I am deranged. Why? Because I joined the military. That is it, and it is similar accusation that make is so their idea of mental health just can not be trusted. There is no standard at all, just a pointed finger and, just like the salem witch trials, I am guilty even though I have had better training and certification than many cops.

That 1934 ban..they wanted to ban everything, and with how the talking heads do not know what they are talking about, that is what they sound like they are going for.

(sorry if this is a bit disjointed)

Post Reply