General American Politics Thread

[Templar Knight]

I feel like not knowing what a tankie is shows how little insight a person has in to leftist political discourse.

 

Or maybe that not even Centrists seem to be aware of the term, or deem it relevant to make it a necessary mention when they talk about various Leftists (likely I'm guessing because it is a term that Leftists use to differentiate themselves from Radicals, which is the term I use) makes it kinda moot for my purposes?

 

Plus, I could just as easily say that many here that claim to be more Leftist don't seem to have much insight into the divisions of Right-wing discourse or ideology.

 

But I digress.

 

I took a hiatus for a bit, time to dive back into it.

 

First, dash. Bits of Kraken in here on guns, but this is basically a response to dash.

 

Of course there were Fascist sympathizers in the US in the years immediately prior to WWII, there were in many different nations. Just as there were Communist and Anarchist Sympathizers in many nations long prior to WWI, but many more after the rise of the USSR and Trotsky's more global revolutionary ideas being circulated (though he didn't gain ultimate power in the USSR, his rival Stalin himself dabbled briefly in the idea with his token support of various communist uprisings or parties, most of which failed due to his lack of serious interest.)

 

While I can understand your analysis of Far-Right thought, and don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, I'd argue that I have seen the reverse among Leftists, no less toxic IMO, only under a veneer of PC culture and moral self-righteousness of their own brand.

 

I'll try and explain. For many recent years prior, there has been very much an erosion of "normative" culture in "The West" (I hate using the term, but its adequate to explain the general countries I refer to. Now, this inherently isn't a bad thing, culture naturally changes over time, and what is normal changes in time. But I'm talking about an actual active push to try and actively destroy many senses of identity and culture, while simultaneously and unashamedly promoting others like they're the greatest of all time.

 

The Right are not wrong in that they've seen many different institutions, groups, and individuals seeking to undermine what they see as White-Eurocentric culture of many different varieties in different ways. I cannot even begin to count how many articles, speeches, manifestos, talks, campaigns, or initiatives have been put forward in recent memory that work towards the degradation of many of these cultural identities, and actively see the destruction of many of these cultures as a good thing. For various reasons, of course. "They're Imperialist in heritage and deserve to be thrown away, they've caused endless troubles to the world and should make way for others, its an inherently bigoted culture, they deserve to feel what its like to be under the thumb of other cultures, its in the name of equality/diversity, its paying reparations etc".

 

I saw it pushed all the time during my GG days, all the time it was "angry white man-children" whose culture needed to become "more mature" or to "die" (as a culture. The infamous "Gamers are Dead" articles was the biggest push of this, and one of the actual sparks that ignited GG).

 

A CIS White Man may as well be the equivalent of a deviant to the Left. Many look upon them as a group with about as much disdain and as a cause for society's ills, they encourage such people not to take pride in their backgrounds, more than a few have openly said that it doesn't matter how much such a person does to help others in their life they'll always be at fault because they were born as white men, they're always assumed to be "privileged" even if they're poor white men, and whenever "diversity" is brought up as a subject its funnily almost always in reference to not something that is actually genuinely diverse but simply is a code-word for "Anti-White Male" because they're always the group that is specifically outlined as getting the short end in such a situation almost without fail.

 

The argument being that bringing down this group or taking it down several pegs will bring about more social equality and social justice, and they propose many different ways to do this. Some, very gradual, others far more radical.

 

I've also seen BLM lambaste Blacks, especially celebrities, who refuse to bend the knee to their ideology, kinda defeating the purpose of their own movement at times, your point? I'd also say that disagreement on the idea of Gun Control doesn't inherently mean that their viewpoints on the other subject has changed. BLM specifically wants a removal of more overarching police forces in its own manifesto and has chanted for dead cops in multiple cases. Criticizing a police chief on gun control opinions doesn't necessarily change an opposition that the former stance.

 

You're also getting into a lot of presumptive thinking on why people want guns. I would argue that it is not to "protect them from deviants", its to protect themselves and their property and so that people mind their own business, period. It inherently promotes the idea of individual privacy. You don't need to be a necessarily bigoted person to want to own a gun for such reasons. How many people of any background in the Ghettos or other rough urban neighbourhoods would you say own guns, legal or no? I would wager a fairly high number, for no other reason than they know that where they're living is not safe, and they want something that'll stop a potential rapist, mugger, thief, or killer dead. Regardless of whoever they might be.

 

They're also arguably a deterrent for crime. Most criminals are not bold enough to actually go into a house, or rob a person who they think may be armed. Why? Because they also like their own lives, and don't care to risk losing them facing someone with a weapon if they can avoid it.

 

How many farmers own guns? They not only have practical reasons for owning guns due to rural work reasons, but they also desire a measure of safety. They see strangers on their property, they don't know what they want, could also be thieves. Better to be safe and approach with a loaded gun just in case.

 

I would not call it fear of the deviant, I would call it a primal desire for safety in a world you KNOW is not safe. Thomas Hobbes I find to be quite enlightening on this subject, among others. Our world is and has never been a 100% safe one, in fact its only been a recent modern phenomenon where people can generally live their lives without a measure of fear or anxiety constantly as to whether or not they'll survive next year. There will always be someone who wants to get one up on someone else, through force or through surreptitiousness. Or, if you weren't facing others, you were facing nature. Hence why every Frontiersman in early America owned at least one firearm, if not multiple ones.

 

In the middle ages, long before firearms, people placed their servitude to Lords and Knights who promised them safety in exchange for their services. It was the destruction of the medieval social contract, when it became evident that the Nobility were not necessary nor would they always strive to keep Peasants safe, or for said Peasants to serve them in exchange, that brought on the Renaissance, in part.

 

Our world has become much more "civilized" since those early days, but the need for safety isn't necessarily gone nor will it ever go away. You have no idea what could happen tomorrow. You HOPE that nothing happens, but if you're smart, you prepare for the eventuality of something happening. For no other reason than you care about your own personal safety, or the safety of your stuff and loved ones.

 

Some hunters or hikers can walk through woods for 20 years, never encounter a bear and never fear them as a result. Others step outside of their trucks and get mauled. Similarly does one ever expect a crime to happen to them? No. But that doesn't mean you don't take precautions. You'd be stupid or naive to do otherwise.

 

But that's my rant on safety.

 

If the ultimate goal of the Far-Right is to "suppress the deviant", then I'd say the Far-Left's ultimate goal is to "overthrow the rulers (maybe not the best equivalent term, but I hope you get what I mean)" which IMO is just as charged an often inaccurately utilized or politically charged a term as "deviant". The Far-Left also desire strong-men, of their kind, so to speak, but they want them for the purposes of social reform in accordance with their senses of righteousness.

 

No, you see a unifying hatred of Christian White people, or more specifically, White Men among more than a few of those on the Left. I certainly have. I've seen stuff where if ANY other racial or cultural group were being referred to, we'd have regarded the statement as bigoted or racist, but because its being said about Whites, nobody says fuck-all, or it may even be applauded.

 

I would also argue that neither trust the common person to do the right thing. Both want to tell them how to live their lives in various respects. Its called virtue-signalling when the Left has done it, and has been seen as preachy when the Right has done it, both are basically the same thing, and I've seen it happening for years.

 

The Far-Right wants to tell you who to fuck, who to marry, and who to associate with, because they don't trust you to think in your own best interests. Why else do you think they were so authoritarian? It would be unnecessary in a system that actively sustained itself without oversight.

 

But the Far-Left can be just as tenacious in the other direction by lecturing us constantly via virtue-signalling all kinds of shit (I've seen it in game press content alone ALL THE TIME.), and just look at how the general Left has treated the idea of Guns, and you have my argument as to how the Left doesn't trust the common person to do the right thing at all.

 

The Left honestly trusts the Government to enforce stricter Gun Laws? A Government which currently is supposedly headed by "Literally Hitler", and is controlled by the one slightly more Pro-Gun party? If they have so much faith in people, why aren't they instead out championing for LESS gun control? Let people own automatics and heavy guns of various types. Let them be outfitted to take out a tank, if need be. Surely if people can be trusted to make the right decisions, there would be no issue here, correct?

 

No, the Left instead seems to want to entrust a small number of people at the top, to keep everyone else safe because they don't trust the average citizen to think sensibly . . . I'll leave that there.

 

Of course the Right may stereo-typically tends to do well in times of chaos and disorder, they represent Conservatism, they naturally promote a more "safe" message in what is "familiar", but that's not always the case that they gain power in such situations all the time. A Leftist regime can promote order through a change in the system or a "decadent" class that has caused the chaos or disorder through their own misdeeds as much as a Right regime can promote order through a "return to normalcy" after a change caused pandemonium in a society.

 

How many Leftists have arisen in times of chaos and disorder into power? Almost every single communist regime did this. The Jacobins did in Revolutionary France (the Right would later regain control under Napoleon after people got fed up of the Jacobins, but still), many regimes of different kinds have taken advantage of situations of chaos or disorder to rise to power. It merely depends on WHO was in power before.

 

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying necessarily, such tactics have been done, but I'm saying you're only seeing one dimension of a much larger picture.

 

Eh, I'd say it depends on the situation as to who is wary of those in power.

 

That may be, but in the pursuit of dismantling power, they inherently SEEK power, do they not? One without power cannot hope to break the power of others, they seek absolute power in order to do so, if they can. And we both know the old saying about power and how it corrupts people. Its like the Roman Dictators. The system worked while people gave up their power after the crisis situation of their own volition, until Julius Caesar came along and refused to give up his power because he assumed he knew how to run the Republic best.

 

All Leftists have sought some measure of power to make their societal dreams a reality, no different from those on the Right, and it has resulted in an endless tug of war over the public's sympathies.

 

So Stalin rose to power and became the monster his claimed was everywhere. The other more rank and file Communists in the USSR were little better. Satirical writers of the time like Mikhail Bulgakov would agree with me. Yes, Stalin was a particularly bad case, but the ideology itself had many problems even though it strove for that most central of Leftist ideals, the equalization of social standings and power. If you get the chance, read "Heart of a Dog" sometime, its quite short and a fairly good political satire of early communist Russia, it was also blacklisted from there for decades.

 

And I'd say that sentiment is a decent goal. The question is being sure in either case that we don't trend on peoples' liberties, and deal with genuine threats as they reveal themselves, IMO.

 

IDK about that. The stats don't suggest that in regards to gun violence. If anything, the incidents across the country, even on merely non-lethal crimes involving guns have fallen quite substantially since the 90s. Nor do I believe the drive to own them is out of fear of "deviants", as I said earlier.

 

That's an interesting question, especially because I would argue many Leftists do not trust people, or at least no moreso than those on the Right. They feel that they know what is best for others just as much as those on the Right, simply from a different direction. They need to tell people what is right, they need to guide others, they need to put things in place that ensures that the right thing is always done because they do not trust people to do the right thing.

 

They trust SOME people do the right thing, but they have no faith that others will do so unless forced to do so. Why else do they seek to change laws and obtain power via candidates that at least appear to support their initiatives?

 

Granted, neither side starts out forceful. They become so, usually, over time, and as they see that nothing is being given to even try and appease their worries, or concerns, or interests. Notice the change merely from the 1960-70s as the Civil Rights movement, became the Black Power movement and the shifts that very visibly took place in their ideologies and tactics, as they realized that the more peaceful methods were no longer working as effectively as they had been.

 

I would also say that where you say the Right-winger is irrationally fearful (not necessarily disagreeing) to the point where they might deny reality, the Leftist IMO is noxiously optimistic to the point where they will deny reality themselves, or even they themselves can also be irrationally fearful about certain subjects (though I usually find them to be noxiously optimistic).

 

I feel bad for the average CNN viewer, or MSM viewer of any channel in generally, personally.

 

Is it impossible for a Centrist or Moderate to agree with certain arguments or viewpoints which others might consider to be singularly extreme by either side of the aisle? I, for instance, have no problem with how people choose to live their lives or what they call themselves, or who they fuck, so long as they or the government don't shove it in my face and don't harm others. BUT, I can also believe that the White Eurocentric identity IS under erosive attack (whereas you'd think all Cultures would be seeing a melting of their cultures into a more global culture, strangely you don't see many of these phenomena occurring in many other non-Western nations that are instead promoting and cultivating national and ethnic pride, one which is carried into these nations), and is being actively suppressed for no other reason than a perceived social righteousness in doing so, often in irrational ways too.

 

I would put forward the hypothesis that you will gain nothing socially by trying to break such rich magnates when they refuse to give to a society or system they feel no compulsion to give more than they need to, for whatever reason. The Romans tried in their time, along with many others besides in their own times, all failed or brought strife and suffering. Despicable as many of them may be, speaking as someone who is not making much money at all, you will find no lasting satisfaction in their destruction. I do believe that corruption needs to be reigned in, and people should be encouraged not to take advantage of others. But that is vast, and multitudinous, and knows no political alignment, and across many areas that you yourself might not be comfortable in acknowledging.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Kraken]

So let me get this straight, when the left is going through a government they can't trust, you criticize them, and when they attempt to propose anarchy or do something without government (which would be really difficult), you criticize them for being anarchists. Your view on the left feels as though you've been on Tumblr and followed all the wrong people. But let's talk about the police, yeah? We're not gonna talk about how black people are disproportionately arrested? Of course they'd want less police officers around because then they're less likely to get arrested for something comparatively minor. When a white teen commits a crime, it's viewed as "innocent misguided youth", but when a black teen does it they're viewed as a "menace to society." Also, higher percentage of gun ownership in population tends to lead to higher rates of gun death (go figure.) For frontiersmen it was for hunting, most of the time. But let's talk about Christians. Despite the message of the bible, many out-spoken members often hold the complete opposite view of what was taught in the bible. They usually also tend to be conservative. But let's also talk about those people who wore crowns of bullets and clutched their AR-15s after the Stoneman Douglas shooting and the calls for gun control afterwards.

[Templar Knight]

@kraken

 

You seem to misunderstand me and my intent. I don't merely criticize the Left for being Left, nor do I necessarily have anything against Anarchists (I merely don't believe that many of their ideas will work in any stable fashion. I'd support Libertarian ideas before an Anarchist, personally.). I criticize them because I want them to be better than the moral grand-standers who seem to be the forefronts of the modern Left who make lame arguments that appeal to emotion rather than make sense or actually work to solve a problem.

 

I criticize them, because I want them to be better.

 

Well that's a generalization if I've ever heard one, and a stereotype reaction. Yet you were just lambasting another for such arguments? (I wouldn't even argue the validity of it, because I know it has been the case before, I just find the situation ironic)

 

I would argue for police reform before chanting for dead cops though. Which was my problem with BLM, among other things.

 

Really? Show me the stats on that. Because the stats I found show that from 1993 to 2011 alone, over 1 million less gun incidents (note, incidents) overall have occurred, and 1997 saw the end of the Assault weapon ban, if I recall. Last I checked, the number of guns in the US did not drastically decrease in that time. There have also been times in the past where the populace was more armed than today, yet the peak for violence of that type of crime was in the 1990s.

 

Also, I wouldn't necessarily bring up Christianity unless you're going to specifically outline a quote or explain the message you're referring to (I'm assuming you mean anti-violence?). I won't deny that there are hypocrites of all religions, but IDK if you've noticed, but Christianity in general seems to have degenerated into mostly a Civic Religion at this point, moreso than actual serious religion. After all, the US only incorporates religion in part in its social or civic rituals, like most secular western societies.

 

One can also hold a different opinion on guns that doesn't necessarily conflict with their religious views.

 

Now, allow me to sojourn formally into my thoughts on the recent Gun debates.

 

I'll be honest, I think the March for Our Lives crowd is stupid, I think their proposals will do nothing to prevent any kind of gun violence, let alone another school shooting, and that most of the laws that have been passed as emotional reactions will be found unconstitutional within a short while. And that the entire argument has literally become a huge "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" shout.

 

The 21 age limit IMO is the first one that has no chance in hell of sticking around. The Second Amendment is clear on this, once a person reaches the age of majority (18), they can own one legally. Unless they feel like amending the constitution to make the voting age 21 (good fucking luck), you're never going to see an age 21 gun restriction stick. If it ever gets put to the Supreme Court, they will shoot it down.

 

The Bump stock ban? Had nothing to do with the Parkland Shooting, that was Las Vegas. And so what? You're banning an accessory item to a weapon that is not too hard for someone to make themselves with the right tools, or to simulate the effects of with the right setup. Also not going to do anything to prevent future shootings. Waste of time.

 

Assault Weapon ban. Considering that many for some reason think that the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" rather than a sporting rifle, I don't think most people are qualified to actually quantify WHAT an assault weapon is, or even understand the current laws around owning automatic weapons which are already fairly extensive, from my understanding. More to the point, any kind of ban isn't going to stop criminals from getting a hold of them, you've just made it impossible for a citizen to legally own one.

 

Clip sizes. Much like the Bump Stock ban, I don't see this preventing further mass shootings. People can make their own clip sizes and magazines with enough know-how, or get them from other states. Moreover, how the hell is this supposed to be enforced state-to-state outside of businesses? Like is Vermont going to setup a huge checkpoint along New Hampshire checking every person's stuff for their clip sizes? And in a situation like a shooting. Okay, so the guy just needs to carry more clips, or he'll buy bigger clips from elsewhere and sneak them in, you're not preventing any tragedy here.

 

Background checks? You'll cause the criminals to go underground, or they won't go to a Shrink for their mental problems because they'll prefer the ability to own a gun than to not to. The ability to enforce this everywhere outside of official businesses is also almost impossible. Again, not gonna prevent any other shooting.

 

None of these proposals will stop another Parkland from occurring, all you're doing is making it harder for citizens to own guns and gun-related accessories. Which unless you're assuming that the average American gun-owner is a loose cannon ready to fucking massacre a school at a drop of a hat, I don't see the logic in limiting citizens' gun rights.

 

Especially since the number of incidents involving firearms, and the number of deaths have fallen over the decades across the entire US. The number of school related incidents has also been decreasing. The country currently has the lowest amount of gun crime occurring in modern history, yet they want to act like its some huge epidemic of violence and bloodshed that requires control.

 

But on to the more philosophical arguments. I've seen the idea basically tossed around: "Well why does a citizen NEED to own this type of weapon or accessory for their safety?"

 

Does a person NEED a car that can accelerate extremely fast? Go over 150 mph? Why don't we just put in automated speed caps into cars, make it impossible to go faster than the legal limit?

 

Does a person NEED the best kind of food if they can live off of KD? Does a person NEED a huge TV? Do they NEED to own chemicals and substances that in the right mixtures could be used to make explosives or napalm or other stuff?

 

No. But who are you to say what a person should and shouldn't be allowed to have? What is the problem in a person owning an automatic weapon or a big clip size? Unless you're assuming that the average person is a psychopath, you have no reason to fear, nor to punish all citizens for the actions of a few psychos.

 

And safety? Sure, such a gun may be excessive for such a purpose (though not necessarily always, I would admit that most average cases I could think of it would be considered excessive). But people regularly go to excess all the time in all different aspects of life anyway. We see no issue there, we only intervene on it as a public safety concern when it comes to mental intoxication by excessive drug partaking, and only then with the performance of certain tasks.

 

Guns are also a hobby to many, from collectors to people who just like shooting various guns at the range.

 

"Oh but its because these have no other purpose beyond killing people." That's a fallacy, because again, its assuming that every gun owner is a murderer and is apparently incapable of handling any kind of weapon properly.

 

"You couldn't match the military anyway if the purpose was to protect against a tyrannical government." Well, certainly not when you refuse to allow the average citizen access to military-grade gear to begin with. I'd argue we should if that is the goal. Historically speaking, the Second Amendment was made in part so that there would be no need for a standing army, every citizen would simply be armed as well as any standing army and would be able to resist the more formal military of the British, or anyone else of the time. Its also why in WWII, the Japanese tossed the idea of a mainland invasion of the US out the window fairly quickly even after their attack on Pearl Harbour, even if they landed, they'd be facing enormous local resistance in California alone.

 

But yea, even though I come from a country with a fair amount of Gun control (Canada), I don't see these proposals doing anything, nor do I see the reason in the line of thinking of limiting gun rights, IMO it might even be better for the US to be more liberal on gun ownership and education.

[Kraken]

When you suggest people to "provide evidence" for a response, maybe you should also do that for your own responses. I don't see the point of having posted evidence on multiple occasions pertaining to my point of view, when it is immediately forgotten as soon as the next response comes out. I'm not saying to re-read the thread 7 times a week, but it is horribly ironic that you say I need evidence, then you immediately state your own opinion without evidence. I will admit, me not doing the same myself is ironic, but I wasn't the one demanding evidence in the last response. Also you are heavily reaching implying that people shouldn't be able to own materials that could be turned into weapons. The war on drugs has already stated such things concerning meth. You can't get anything even remotely related to meth or other drug production without having someone breathing down your neck.

[BTGBullseye]

You can't get anything even remotely related to meth or other drug production without having someone breathing down your neck.

If that was true, then how is it that meth is so common? One of the major ingredients for the production is in the strike strips of matches, and they are not monitored.

[Kraken]

If that was true, then how is it that meth is so common? One of the major ingredients for the production is in the strike strips of matches, and they are not monitored.

I was pointing out the absurdity of it. If you did that with guns, there would be literally nothing that would go without the government over your shoulder.

[Templar Knight]

When you suggest people to "provide evidence" for a response, maybe you should also do that for your own responses. I don't see the point of having posted evidence on multiple occasions pertaining to my point of view, when it is immediately forgotten as soon as the next response comes out. I'm not saying to re-read the thread 7 times a week, but it is horribly ironic that you say I need evidence, then you immediately state your own opinion without evidence. I will admit, me not doing the same myself is ironic, but I wasn't the one demanding evidence in the last response. Also you are heavily reaching implying that people shouldn't be able to own materials that could be turned into weapons. The war on drugs has already stated such things concerning meth. You can't get anything even remotely related to meth or other drug production without having someone breathing down your neck.

 

Takes two to tango pal.

 

At least when pressed on it, I reveal most of my sources. You, mysteriously for this subject, have not by and large, which you admit yourself.

 

I brought it up when you decided to go into hyperbole, which was the specific statement I was calling you out on. I demanded evidence to back your hyperbolic statement.

 

My info is backed by the FBI's crime stats, and the Department of Justice. Gun related crime have dropped like a stone since the 90s in basically every respect.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

 

IDK about you, but a 39% drop in fire-arm related deaths, and a 69% drop in firearm related incidents entirely from '93-2011 alone is quite significant.

 

And Pew Research has a very good article on the subject and crime stats in general, violent crime in general has also dropped like a stone since the 90s:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

 

You're also misunderstanding my philosophical dissection for implications.

 

I never implied that people shouldn't be able to own materials that could be turned into weapons or argued for that to be the situation. My point was specifically that if we were to actually take the logic behind some of these arguments seriously, that would be the logical conclusion.

 

There's also a big difference between Meth which is already highly illegal, and say a knife, any kind of tool that could be used as a weapon, various fertilizers, basic chemicals to make various mixtures that can be lethal (Hell, one can even make Thermite by trial and error) pressure cookers, a vehicle, or even paintball guns. You can obtain all of those without any real suspicion.

 

You're going to argue with me that someone cannot buy over a dozen different kinds of innocuous weapons today without much hassle? Weapons that in the right hands can be even more deadly than the average gunman? Yet we don't see that as an issue?

 

I was discussing the matter philosophically, not as an actual advocation on my part, but peeling apart the logic behind the taking away guns for peoples' safety argument.

[rairii]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DYeYkJkqgs

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y50rwBtiZBU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRAHNjhsZjc

 

 

 

To kraken and username, as a gun owner whos live in a country where having a gun is rather a privilege than a right and where also thé laws every time that there a terrorist attack or a similar event, you two should be happy To live if im not mistaken in a country where this right is actually protected by the constitution and by a controversial but effective lobby that is the nra, but you will actually use your brain and do a little search you will ses that during her history the nra always supported some of the biggest gun control laws such as the 1934 nfa or the 1968 gca, the same thing can be more or less said about the united states...

 

Again if you guys had some brains and do some research you'll see that there was always gun control in the united states throughout their history and even before the country was even founded in 1776, and again as we are speaking there are already more than 20k of guns laws in this country, what does make anyone think that one more will change a thing ?

 

I dont care in general about your feelings but the level of double standard is high in these two libtard make me cringe the facts that one pretend To be mostly pro gun or love guns yet want gun control for beyond stupid reasons (username) and the others a eu de whos openly admited shooting and owning gun himself is beyond hypocritical and the only thing they are proving is that sometime it is also the gun owners themselve that can be their own worse enemy and thus giving credits To the anti gunner...

 

Again as a gun owner myself i personnaly think that you two are an embarassment To the gun community, you all talk yet you wont go To any pro gun forum like ar15.com to discuss you concern, a lack of courage if you ask me...

 

Oh and meanwhile in vermont one of the safest states in the us, home of constitutional carry and the which had some of the most permissive gun laws, has just throwed 240 years of freedom in the toilet by banning bump stock and magazine that hold more than 10 rounds... beautiful really this what happen when you have a democrat majority in both state houses and a rino gov that votes stupid and useless laws by emotions...

 

Meanwhile in canada...

 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/03/21/canada-introduces-tighter-gun-legislation/

 

 

...and my sincere sympathy for the norwegians guns owners...

 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/03/16/norwegian-hunters-lose-semi-automatic-rifles-scrap-sell/

 

 

When i see all of this, i wonder if it was worth it to win world war 2, because we didn't learn anything from it.

 

okay i'd just like to ask

where, pray tell, the fuck have i said anything about gun control?

i said people who want something to be done about gun violence should get off their ass and be more active, instead of bickering about it for a month before forgetting the problem even exists

quit being a petty bitch and calling people names when you don't agree with them

[Selous Templar]

quit calling people names when you don't agree with them

quit being a petty bitch

I'm calling out a fucking idiot on what he is, a fucking idiot

 

Life comes at you fast.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Guest (see edit history)

[rairii]

quit calling people names when you don't agree with them

quit being a petty bitch

 

Life comes at you fast.

You act like I didn't recognize that as I was typing it out

Difference is I'm calling out a fucking idiot on what he is, a fucking idiot

Having common sense isn't a partisan thing.

[dashofweak]

So, I want to discuss the deeper stuff, Sel and Bull you don't need to be a part of this, you seem uninterested in doing anything except 1-3 line responses anyways.

 

I have much more hope for knight here. Anyways, I specifically want to talk about this idea that "straight white men" are under attack by BLM, feminism, and seemingly everything on the left, because this is where you and I (and i bet a lot of other people) have a different world view than you on. See, I don't think it that straight white guys are under attack or something along those lines.

 

Let me ask you this, does: "The left attack straight, white, cis, guys and tries to shame them just for being white. They use PC culture to try to suppress what straight white men want and try to make them out as the bad guys." ring true? If it does, I totally can understand why but I think that's not necessarily the case. See, it's not "Straight white guys" that Social Justice types hate, it's the established power structures built within society, and not all of them are laws. Many of these are either social or while TECHNICALLY dismantled, their echos are still felt today. And a lot of these power structures where built by straight, white, cis, men in order to benefit straight white cis men while leaving others out of the that power structure. What we're seeing now is attack on this existing power structure, not the idea of being a white guy or straightness or being cisgendered. And this dismantling is being done because POC, LGBTQ people, and in general minority groups are getting power, not more power, just more of a voice and ability to change situations that are detrimental to them.

 

But I will admit that POC and LGBTQ have something that seemingly straight, white, cis guys don't: and that's a narrative, which is pretty powerful. Usually, straight, white, cis, guy's narrative was more like the "default", every hero that was written or any tale told was for the benefit of straight, white, cis, men, because they were the ones who had all the power. But now, there really isn't a "default" and that's good in my opinion, but at the same time POC and LGBTQ people have a powerful narrative, a good-feeling narrative: overcoming oppression. And because straight, white, cis, men were usually the oppressors, we can be made out to be the villain a lot. Straight, white, cis, men really don't have a narrative anymore.

 

That's why it can feel like straight, white, cis, men are being "attacked" but I really don't think they are, and in fact, I think it leaves us open to a new narrative: overcoming difference and fighting back against the authority that really has been ruining everyone's lives up to now.

 

I'm going to post a link to a site: https://www.redneckrevolt.org/about

 

This is a group of people who found that narrative. Rather than uniting by race, which in a world with more travel and communication than any point in history is detrimental, they're uniting by class.

 

This is a narrative i'm fully behind, because stories ARE important. And seeing that in most of them people who you're supposed to identify with are villains, can make it feel like the world's out to get you. But it isn't, more people want equal rights, and that's a good thing. So when they attack these systems of oppression, they aren't attacking you, but a bad legacy that you don't need to hold on to. While we can learn from the past, often times the most important lessons are what NOT to do.

 

Plus, I don't think "the west" or "western values" are eroding from "PC culture". When i think of "western values" I think of things like free speech and feminism. Feminism IS a western idea, and a pretty good one too. I don't think of white people as western, I think of the attitudes people have, how one goes about making their mark on the world and just living as a person.

 

There's a lot of specifics one could get into on this thread, but when we all see the world in a different way, when all have different but rational (sometimes) response to any given piece of information. And specific political things just have way too much baggage to do anything but either preach to the choir with people that you do agree with or butt heads with people that you don't. Especially when you get to specific people.

[Kraken]

At least when pressed on it, I reveal most of my sources. You, mysteriously for this subject, have not by and large, which you admit yourself.

No, you actually haven't. Selous has given more sources, but I haven't seen much of yours. Especially when considering that, in the last page of the discussion, you had only 4 sources, despite the lengthy posts you've left. While, yes, I didn't provide any real sources in the last page, I was responding to criticism. Arguably, yes, the last post on the previous page needs sources, but considering the amount of sources I have left previously, (As well as multiple posts) it would be hard not to understand my stance on gun control.

 

I brought it up when you decided to go into hyperbole, which was the specific statement I was calling you out on. I demanded evidence to back your hyperbolic statement.

 

My info is backed by the FBI's crime stats, and the Department of Justice. Gun related crime have dropped like a stone since the 90s in basically every respect.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

 

IDK about you, but a 39% drop in fire-arm related deaths, and a 69% drop in firearm related incidents entirely from '93-2011 alone is quite significant.

 

And Pew Research has a very good article on the subject and crime stats in general, violent crime in general has also dropped like a stone since the 90s:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

 

You're also misunderstanding my philosophical dissection for implications.

 

I never implied that people shouldn't be able to own materials that could be turned into weapons or argued for that to be the situation. My point was specifically that if we were to actually take the logic behind some of these arguments seriously, that would be the logical conclusion.

 

There's also a big difference between Meth which is already highly illegal, and say a knife, any kind of tool that could be used as a weapon, various fertilizers, basic chemicals to make various mixtures that can be lethal (Hell, one can even make Thermite by trial and error) pressure cookers, a vehicle, or even paintball guns. You can obtain all of those without any real suspicion.

 

You're going to argue with me that someone cannot buy over a dozen different kinds of innocuous weapons today without much hassle? Weapons that in the right hands can be even more deadly than the average gunman? Yet we don't see that as an issue?

 

I was discussing the matter philosophically, not as an actual advocation on my part, but peeling apart the logic behind the taking away guns for peoples' safety argument.

 

Gun related crime is missing the entirety of gun-related incidents. Sure, crime might be down in general, but do we consider this being because we have the largest percentage of population in prison compared to all other countries? Or is it because everyone is worried about getting shot by cops, despite being clearly unarmed?

 

 

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

 

Anyways, all that aside, I want to talk about Universal Basic Income.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc

 

Considering how some parts of the population blame certain other minorities about "leeching off our generosity" or some other phrase similar to that, instead maybe we should have everyone get paid equally. Despite some racial motivation for it, it would arguably, be a "patch" for capitalism. If you've watched the video, we could have an educated discussion about the implications of having such a system.

[Selous Templar]

When i think of "western values" I think of things like free speech and feminism. Feminism IS a western idea, and a pretty good one too.

oooh, so you're a male feminist?

Better watch out ladies, he might be using the "Sneaky" technique to get women, like the correlation of most beta male feminists these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjojBUsTzG0

[Kraken]

oooh, so you're a male feminist?

Better watch out ladies, he might be using the "Sneaky" technique to get women, like the correlation of most beta male feminists these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjojBUsTzG0

I find it hilarious to think that this is what you consider to be a fitting response for a serious discussion. It's not hypocritical to be a male feminist, however it would be ironic if you were male and viewed females as superior or inferior. The whole point of feminism is to bring females up to the benefits males have simply for being male. Very few males actually attempt to get partners by being a part of feminism. But despite that, who cares? The discussion of whether a person has a partner or not shouldn't mean anything unless you're actively discussing what your partner is like. And as far as I can tell, we haven't been discussing that with American politics.

[rairii]

When i think of "western values" I think of things like free speech and feminism. Feminism IS a western idea, and a pretty good one too.

oooh, so you're a male feminist?

Better watch out ladies, he might be using the "Sneaky" technique to get women, like the correlation of most beta male feminists these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjojBUsTzG0

That's hilariously cynical. I can't tell if you're trying to change my mind about male feminists or make a point that Jordan Peterson is an idiot.

I'd rather date one of those """beta male feminists""" than some toxic conservative fuck who thinks women are weak and incapable, any funny enough, other women feel the same way.

[BTGBullseye]

So, I want to discuss the deeper stuff, Sel and Bull you don't need to be a part of this, you seem uninterested in doing anything except 1-3 line responses anyways.

Seems like your thinking is that we can't possibly have anything to add if we don't type up an essay... That's a problem. Not for me, but for you. Just wanted to point that out.

[rairii]

So, I want to discuss the deeper stuff, Sel and Bull you don't need to be a part of this, you seem uninterested in doing anything except 1-3 line responses anyways.

Seems like your thinking is that we can't possibly have anything to add if we don't type up an essay... That's a problem. Not for me, but for you. Just wanted to point that out.

Nobody's articulate enough to argue against several paragraphs worth of points and information with a few sentences, that definitely includes you.

[dashofweak]

When i think of "western values" I think of things like free speech and feminism. Feminism IS a western idea, and a pretty good one too.

oooh, so you're a male feminist?

Better watch out ladies, he might be using the "Sneaky" technique to get women, like the correlation of most beta male feminists these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjojBUsTzG0

 

 

Oh shoot! I didn't realize Sel, here i thought you were an alt-righter but I've been had! You're actually a man-hating radical feminist! Wow! I honestly never would have thought.

 

I mean, I'm just assuming you're a man-hating, radical, buzzword, third-wave, feminist considering that I only really tend to hear about how men are infiltrating feminism so that way they can get with girls from the radest of the radical feminists. Huh, I mean, you'd have to hate men quite a lot to think that the only reason someone would agree with feminist ideas is because we're just endlessly horny fuck machines that want to put the peener into the warm thing. Like, that's such a low view on men.

 

It's kinda shocking to be honest.

[Selous Templar]

Feminism is crazy, because they forget that why the MRA's and MIGTOWs aren't taken as seriously, it's because nothing hates women more, than other women.

[Kraken]

Feminism is crazy, because they forget that why the MRA's and MIGTOWs aren't taken as seriously, it's because nothing hates women more, than other women.

I almost feel like you've never met religious conservatives. It's ironic that people can be Christians and extremely conservative, considering that the ideas of it are to be kind to everyone. It's not really being kind when the same people attempt to say abortion and birth control are unbiblical, despite divorces being legal which more or less were considered to be unheard of before the 20th century. Also could you consider that while both males and females can be abusive, the MRA and MGTOW groups are basically saying they want superiority over women. But nooo let's just worry about masculinity and virginity, which are both meaningless constructs. And you can't say "well you criticize race as being inherent", but last I checked, the government doesn't register if you're a virgin or if you're considered masculine.

 

Here, let me leave some speeches.

 

http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/steinem-testimony-speech-text/

 

http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/chisholm-for-the-equal-rights-amendment-speech-text/