Not a chance because a black person killing a white officer in cold blood is what liberals want to see. The next talking points will blame white police oppression and violence against blacks to justify the killing and make it someone else's fault.
Aaaand this time the senseless shooting was on camera.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
@syskatine
You believe that states should be judged on a case by case basis for gun ownership. However, you show that the same latitude should not be provided to individuals. In your world the individual is more dangerous than the state. You've verified this. Background checks are nothing more than a false sense of security while giving the state more power, we had an assault weapons ban from what 1994-2001?
No, none of those weapons should be monopolized by the state. Several of those weapons are the result of the state and its wish to consolidate or initiate force against others for its own gain.
You say I'm not totally against monopolization of certain weapons. I believe this assumption is based in the belief that I believe a military for defense could never be formed through freedom of association. It also assumes these weapons would exist, or at the very least continue to be mass produced, without a state having ever created or mass produced them contractually. They may, we don't know. But I find it interesting that you'd make such an assumption when you've stated previously that you believe that most of our infrastructure would not exist without the state. This gives the appearance that what would or would not exist in the absence of the state is determined by that which supports your own political views.
In the here and now let's assume we disarm the state. Do these weapons you approve of for monopolization continue to be mad produced and start being sold on the open market or do they quit being made? Is it possible the only reason many of these weapons exist is because the state wants them for the initiation of force against people? (Apply this to your argument about Brad and nukes. Which is really just hyperbole to deflect from the actual conversation in a gotcha type of way).
Finally, your view of democracy is a myth. It assumes representatives are held accountable by the electorate. There is no accountability in reality. They don't know who voted for them. They get into office and do as they wish or are told by those who buy them e.g., corporations, the party elite, etc. what to do. That is the only accountability that exists. Do you think they'll support the complete overthrow of the system that is so very profitable for them? Like I said your view of democracy is mythical at best.
You believe that states should be judged on a case by case basis for gun ownership. However, you show that the same latitude should not be provided to individuals. In your world the individual is more dangerous than the state. You've verified this. Background checks are nothing more than a false sense of security while giving the state more power, we had an assault weapons ban from what 1994-2001?
No, none of those weapons should be monopolized by the state. Several of those weapons are the result of the state and its wish to consolidate or initiate force against others for its own gain.
You say I'm not totally against monopolization of certain weapons. I believe this assumption is based in the belief that I believe a military for defense could never be formed through freedom of association. It also assumes these weapons would exist, or at the very least continue to be mass produced, without a state having ever created or mass produced them contractually. They may, we don't know. But I find it interesting that you'd make such an assumption when you've stated previously that you believe that most of our infrastructure would not exist without the state. This gives the appearance that what would or would not exist in the absence of the state is determined by that which supports your own political views.
In the here and now let's assume we disarm the state. Do these weapons you approve of for monopolization continue to be mad produced and start being sold on the open market or do they quit being made? Is it possible the only reason many of these weapons exist is because the state wants them for the initiation of force against people? (Apply this to your argument about Brad and nukes. Which is really just hyperbole to deflect from the actual conversation in a gotcha type of way).
Finally, your view of democracy is a myth. It assumes representatives are held accountable by the electorate. There is no accountability in reality. They don't know who voted for them. They get into office and do as they wish or are told by those who buy them e.g., corporations, the party elite, etc. what to do. That is the only accountability that exists. Do you think they'll support the complete overthrow of the system that is so very profitable for them? Like I said your view of democracy is mythical at best.
Last edited:
Hey, it's just another guy exercising his second amendment rights against an oppressive government, isn't it? At least, isn't that the reason we keep these guns available for everyone? This is what it looks like. That second amendment is alive and well, isn't it Mega?
#'Murica. #Losers win again
Yes, you don't? Can I get you to get more specific, or do we treat ALL states the same? Sudan = U.S.? Now who's black and white? Yes, gun policy should be different for different countries. Do you really disagree with this?
WTF are you spinning about I'm against the same latitude for individuals? I don't know how to debate someone that just ignores the other side's points. Here's what I typed about the individualized inquiry:
Why do you say I'm against individualized inquiry?
So you really think that individuals should get twin .50 cal's and M60s? Any licensure or certification?
Because your stance has morphed as discussion evolved. Look, I'm okay with you having your opinion on this. What I'm not okay with is acting as if you have some infallible logic that is unattainable for the opposition. The primary point some of us have been driving home is that you are not anti gun and you think the state has a larger propensity for handling weapons responsibly than that of individual citizens. Even though throughout history governments have shown and continue to show the propensity for killing more people in a very short time frame than any citizen is capable of achieving in a whole lifetime. You act as if you're deeply saddened over the deaths of good people, until it's your government doing the killing. This is a subject I'm probably more liberal than you on. The difference is in who I point the finger at, who I think should be disarmed, and why.
Who's feeding the war against the police state frenzy? Those advocating for 2nd amendment rights (conservatives) or those arguing that changes should be made to the right to bear arms (liberals)?
Sometimes I ponder if this is what President Obama meant when he insisted we get in the face of our neighbors. ..and so forth. Did he not think this out? Or is he okay with deaths as a sacrifice for change? Or was he talking about something different altogether?
You know, my first thought at the time of that statement was that he's a consequentialist and more specifically utilitarian.
Oh, he's definitely utilitarian.
Whether that makes him responsible or not is a different argument.
Whether that makes him responsible or not is a different argument.
Well, better said, how responsible that makes him is a different argument. Most assuredly he bears some of the responsibility. Whether that's 2% or 80% is beyond me...though I've got my thoughts.
If you think that claymore mines, M60's and .50 cal machine guns should be legal (apparently without licensure?) i think we're irreconcilable on this. That's just out there.
The "state" means nothing until you specify which state. You can't compare the US with Yemen or Iraq. If I don't like the way my government is handling guns, I can sue, vote them out, run for office, there are options. 99.999% of the time when someone decides, like you're apparently advocating, that the system doesn't work and force against government is the means to oppose, you get a nitwit that shot the deputy in Houston, or McVeigh, or any number of losers that again, lack the judgment to pour piss out of a boot, much less decide who gets to live and die.
And what killing from my government are you referring to? Wth are you talking about? Take it beyond the realm of hypothetical and identify the government and their irresponsible use.
"Even though throughout history governments have shown and continue to show the propensity for killing more people in a very short time frame than any citizen is capable of achieving in a whole lifetime."
History has also shown what happens when really stupid people keep the sane people from forming government and having order, commerce, medicine, etc. Look at all the squalid shitholes where there's no government because no government is strong enough. The world has changed, Thor. If the powdered wigs n' knee britches crowd that wrote the second amendment saw today's technology, world and recent history they would say:
1. Gun rights zealots have lost their collective mind;
2. Do you really think we were talking about semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clips?
3. We were grabbing flintlock muskets and squeezing off a round every 2 minutes. So was our enemy. We didn't have a standing army.
4. Christ, we told you the reason for that amendment -- to maintain a militia. Now it's an anachronism. Move on.
Here's one: weaponized drones. Do you think the general public should be allowed to have weaponized drones?
You couldn't wait at least 29 hours before ploiticizing his death?
Interesting... Black Sheriff says Obama started war on police.
Can't wait for the racist analysis by Sys.
“the President of the United States started this war on police.” - Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee
Can't wait for the racist analysis by Sys.
“the President of the United States started this war on police.” - Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee
So you play blind patriot in one thread in an attempt to push your position and cognizant citizen mixed with a little blind patriot in another. ↓↓↓↓↓
Isn't it interesting that deaths at the hands of your precious government do not seem to matter unless it pushes a political agenda. Fake or manufactured outrage is all you show. You are all over the map with your fake outrage. On one hand it doesn't matter if innocents were killed because the end justifies the means, as long as its your guy ordering the killing. To date it is documented that between 143,000 and 163,000 innocents have been murdered by our government in Iraq. That's just one war and not even mentioning your drone happy pres and his kill list in other countries or going back to Vietnam.
Interesting that you trust a bunch of elites that hold a public office to have the competency to make this decision. Especially knowing that their decisions are guided by money and power.
Who created drones and for what reason were they created? You keep arguing that citizens shouldn't have these weapons while completely glossing over the fact that in most cases citizens didn't create these weapons nor are most citizens trying to attain such weapons. Governments created them so that they could kill civilians as quickly and efficiently as possible, yet you continue to give government more latitude for judgment. Your moral argument is for monopolization and disarming of the people because you trust government. As usual, head in the sand that can never happen over here attitude while completely ignoring that while we may not be doing it here we are doing it all over the world.
Your view on what the founders would say is funny. The 2nd amendment was a limitation on the federal government, not the states. Illinois is completely within constitutional boundaries to restrict the owning of arms, no such right exists in their constitution. Just like Arizona is acting completely within its reserved powers when it allows open carry.
Last edited:
Just own it Mega. You are the pro-gun version of Syskatine.Nice throw princess.
Keep using tragic deaths to make crass political points.
You are comparing apples and watermelons. Not even sure what the point is you keep trying and failing to make.
Simple question for a simple fellow. Do you think sys showed good judgement in making this a political topic basically the second he heard about it? If so, that says a lot about you too I guess. I never said it wasn't a legit thing to debate - ever. I just said his timing was ghoulish, which it was by any metric.
Do you think I said there is no point at which a tragedy can be examined for political discourse? Where did I say that? Where did I infer that? Let me try this one more time before I simply stop replying to you on this.
1. People were murdered on live tv.
2. Like 10 minutes later, Syskatine is posting about gun control in the middle of a developing tragedy.
3. That's distasteful. Unseemly. Heartless. Barbaric. Shallow. Inappropriate. Not surprising or out of character though.
D. Shut up and get back to work.
The point I am making is the difference between you and Sys is an arbitrary number of hours. When is the appropriate time to examine a tragedy? The moment right before some one Mega agrees with examines a tragedy.
You really see no difference in the tone of sys' post and Mega?
If you don't you're being intellectually dishonest.
For them to be the same, mega would have needed to start a thread, post in all caps, and make the statement that all democrats want blacks to kill whitey.
You and sys are like ou fans. It's really comical.
"Also interesting... not a word about the deputy sheriff who was executed in Texas. A government officer killed by a loser with a gun. Seems like a perfect opportunity to expand the troll."
Yeah really respectful tone. Very somber. The guy is barely dead and Mega just can't wait to use his death to make a political point.
Nice try, but not even in the same book. One was a tasteless troll to conservatives on the board. The other was an observational troll to one specific person based on the ridiculous initial troll.
Maybe now you can figure it out.
Ah, so the line is drawn at whether your crass politicizing comment is addressed generally to a group of people or specifically to an individual. Got it. Carry on.
Also one comment was intended to shame those who believe in inaction in the face of tragedy. One was just using the death of an officer to, maybe, win an internet argument. It is hard to tell given Mega's cool dude stringing together non sequiturs arguing style.
Last edited:
Calling @poke2001 --- time for you to tattle again?
For those of you that don't know, poke2001 very publicly and confidently predicted Mitt Romsney to win last cycle. He was reading right wing blogs and really drinking the cool-aid, and it cost him several months of exile from this board. As I recall, he spotted a conspiracy to skew the polling. Yes -- he thought all the polling was a lamestream media conspiracy, like sarah palin might allege. He won't talk about it -- he just criticizes me all the time now and tattles to the moderator when he gets the chance. The other cons were too cagey to take the bet. Not him.
@ThorOdinson13 , I can't keep up -- you were talking about using guns in war this whole time?! Now we're keeping up with our federal government military weapons with a civilian arms race? Christ, you really would make this a third world country.
For those of you that don't know, poke2001 very publicly and confidently predicted Mitt Romsney to win last cycle. He was reading right wing blogs and really drinking the cool-aid, and it cost him several months of exile from this board. As I recall, he spotted a conspiracy to skew the polling. Yes -- he thought all the polling was a lamestream media conspiracy, like sarah palin might allege. He won't talk about it -- he just criticizes me all the time now and tattles to the moderator when he gets the chance. The other cons were too cagey to take the bet. Not him.
@ThorOdinson13 , I can't keep up -- you were talking about using guns in war this whole time?! Now we're keeping up with our federal government military weapons with a civilian arms race? Christ, you really would make this a third world country.
Thor, I just think you guys are batshit crazy when it comes to guns. Your point about governments killing people is well taken, but it has little applicability to determining what kinds of guns should be on American streets. You try to say because our military is real good at its job, and uses big guns, that rank and file citizenry needs access to the same armaments? Why? Our government hasn't used a daisy cutter here on anyone, or a M60 for that matter. Obama is actually trying to demilitarize police departments, and I'd think you'd be all for that.
Gun control vs. selecting which countries to invade/military fights overseas are just two separate issues, imo.
I still haven't heard a single practical alternative from a conservative that would put a stop or even a dent in these mass shootings. You seem to be all for licensure (or individualized inquiry, to use your parlance) but isn't that a non-starter to you second amendment enthusiasts?
Stand by that @syskatine is a totally worthless poster and a total POS.
You're just being obtuse. I think you know it. Quit. You lost. Stop defending the indefensible and just agree he made a tone deaf post.
All Sys posts are tone deaf, you should hear the things he has said to jonnyvito. But, nothing about the subject matter or timing of his OP was inappropriate.
This one cracks me up. Even though you know you're wrong, you're still trying. You can't even bring yourself to call the original post a troll post even though your twin in thought has acknowledged it was.
I'll believe you care about troll posts when you don't gloss over monstrosities like "Also interesting... not a word about the deputy sheriff who was executed in Texas. A government officer killed by a loser with a gun. Seems like a perfect opportunity to expand the troll."
"Guess she should've been packing heat. She probably had it coming, rabble rousing with that chamber of commerce piece....
'Murica, where everybody gits a gun! Yeehah!"
"Also interesting... not a word about the deputy sheriff who was executed in Texas. A government officer killed by a loser with a gun. Seems like a perfect opportunity to expand the troll."
Yup. So intensely similar they've managed to become strikingly different. Yup.
'Murica, where everybody gits a gun! Yeehah!"
"Also interesting... not a word about the deputy sheriff who was executed in Texas. A government officer killed by a loser with a gun. Seems like a perfect opportunity to expand the troll."
Yup. So intensely similar they've managed to become strikingly different. Yup.
What is the difference here? Why is one an outrage and one doesn't even merit mention.
Both sarcastic. Both reference a recent tragedy. One uses it in an effort to reduce tragedy and one uses it to win an internet pissing contest.
Similar threads
