[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump
- Thread starter thebobmaster_v1legacy
- Start date
Conveniently cut off the part where I went on to talk about the 5 million members of the NRA, huh? And the NRA, when Trump wasn't the president and no doubt when he's gone, love to touch themselves to the idea of fighting the evil government. Nice little dishonesty there.Leg End said:
No, it's fact. There is no situation where you can win a shootout against the government. Go ahead and ask Robert Finnicum how it worked out for him. Guy bragged about how many federal agents he could kill and he got shot dead. Don't see how it would work any differently for you. Honestly, the whole "it's just my opinion thing" in this regard has the same tone as you posting the navy SEAL copypasta in terms how just how much you overestimate your ability to beat the police and/or military in a shootout.
Guns are not a holy grail that solve all your problems.
I'd like to figure that out too, girl. There's only so much rope I can give a guy, and I'm left to wonder if I've hit the Lewis Black point yet. I'll let you know when I figure it out.Saelune said:
You're finding what isn't actually there, my man. I specifically was pointing out how gun owners tend to be a wide spectrum of people and opinions on ownership. Is the NRA stupid? On quite a few levels, yes. I'm edging pretty close on them largely being in it for money and shilling these days and not doing enough as they should(and completely ignoring some things, or fucking endorsing gun control measures), but they can be useful. This is largely referring to organizational heads, because the membership is all over the place. Some people blindly support them and exactly down the line they tread, others do it because they think the American Left is absolutely fucknuts on restrictions, others do it because they are the most well-known gun rights group and do do heavy lifting, so backing them is smart for them in that context. If I were to give them any money, it'd be somewhere on that last one.erttheking said:
I didn't touch on them because I really don't care about them. As for the rest, you do you my dude. Enjoy your gun when you get it, have fun shooting, and I hope you need never use it in a situation where it's not for fun and practice.
Trump had a better foreign policy, and George W Bush had a better domestic policy. Both of them are shitty people who didn't win the majority of the vote.Saelune said:Trump with a baby who's parents were killed in the El Paso shooting
Reminds me of this:
Or, alternatively, don't ban guns based on what a picture of them looks like, list features to restrict. In Australia, it varies by state a bit, but a semi-auto centrefire rifle is Cat D, no matter what type of stock it has or its colour.Baffle2 said:
Not the damned assault weapon list, though, and not a list of guns restricted by name, or containing parts made by named manufacturers. That's hopeless.
Indeed. One of the issues with the TEC-9 in particular was the state of California kept going after it based on name and cosmetics, which meant Intratec simply redesigned and rebranded without ever having to solve the pistol's core problem: the capability of any idiot with a tool kit and a tiny bit of expertise to modify it to fire automatically. Entire time, it was a gangbanger favorite precisely for that reason, not the dumbass plastic goobers and doodads. Then a grandfathered TEC-DC9 got itself used in Columbine.Thaluikhain said:
I was being critical of you for being overly concerned about the government and feeling the need to have a gun. That is a standard NRA talking point until Trump became president and their talking points switched to "kill filthy Democrats who don't love our beloved government," and it'll be their talking points again when a Democrat is president again. Not all NRA members think that? Well they're still part of an organization that readily uses the rhetoric, and actions speak louder than words as far as I'm concerned.Leg End said:
TL;DR You and the heads of the NRA seem to be on the same page, and whatever grievances other members have with the NRA, they aren't enough for them to speak up about it. So they're effectively on board with current NRA rhetoric. They got a problem with that? Then maybe they should break away from the crazies who have had leaders that say all Democrats should be shot.
Oddly enough, in most of Australia, crossbows are even more heavily restricted than guns.Baffle2 said:
Note my specific wording was not that the NRA said that, but the NRA had leaders who said that.tstorm823 said:
And they did.
https://www.newsweek.com/nugent-democrats-coyotes-shot-876408
Ted Nugent is a crazy person, and that comment is pretty vile. I'd hazard a guess he meant shooting coyotes as a metaphor of some kind, but I don't actually know what the non-metaphorical equivalent is. I don't know what the political parallel would even be to keeping your gun ready to shoot coyotes, so if it isn't really vile, then at best it's marginally vile and really really stupid. But I think the whole quote undermines your point:erttheking said:
"Don't ask why. Just know that evil, dishonesty, and scam artists have always been around and that right now they're liberal, they're Democrat, they're RINOs, they're Hollywood, they're fake news, they're media, they're academia, and they're half of our government, at least," Nugent said according to conservative media watchdog Media Matters.
Nugent continued: "So come to that realization. There are rabid coyotes running around. You don't wait till you see one to go get your gun. Keep your gun handy, and every time you see one, you shoot one."
That's not someone telling people they should love the government so long as Republicans are in charge. That's a paranoid delusional saying there are people out to get you, but even he's saying it just happens to be Democrats, etc. at the moment. "Buy a gun or 4 because you can't trust the government" is pretty well baked into this rant.
Yes and no. He doesn't clearly say 'Republicans are the best, y'all', but the issue is obviously with the left being in government (as they were at the time). I'm not saying he hasn't said the same about Republicans since they came into power, but has he? (Genuinely don't know, and he's too bonkers for me to want to find out what other awful shit he's come out with.)tstorm823 said:
I did a quickie look into it the other day, and you still need to complete a more rigorous background check (and in quebec, get put on a gun owner list), pass a safety test to get your basic licence, taker further tests for restricted guns (anything more than a bolt-action rifle, etc), plus possession/acquisition/transport licenses, etc. And I think we have restrictions on the amount of bullets per mag, although the conservatives may or may not have axed those in the last decade, I forget.Leg End said:
Sooo...Either this small set of regulations that present additional barriers is already enough to help a ton, or people in the US are inherently more violent and evil than we are or something. *shrug*
Which, you know, I think is unlikely because we also basically attempted a genocide of First Nations people up here in past (and still treat them like shit) so I don't think we're THAT many orders of magnitude more "good" or pure than you guys. We're just more polite.
But yeah, not getting back into this discussion again, as I don't think either of us will make headway.
Eh, thanks but no thanks.
Paintball was a ton of fun the one time I did it and I have no interest in going any more "real" than that. That and while seeing what a shotgun would be like to shoot on a shooting range one time might be fun...I'd likely shatter my spindly little noodle arms from the recoil on top of if feeling too "real" and possibly ruining my love of shotties in gaming.
Well, in that he hasn't launched any new pointless wars (yet). He's still exacerbated the existing ones, and almost sparked off military confrontations through sheer grandstanding.Gergar12 said:
Recall his idea to invade South America?
A crazy person on the board of directors for the biggest gun lobby in America with 5 million people. 5 million people who want to reap the benefits of being part of the NRA but want to duck being associated with the crazy shit it does, and in my book, you don't get to cherry-pick like that. If you're an NRA member and you say nothing about this, that's the same as supporting it.tstorm823 said:
Can I ask you a question? Does every Republican get issued a Republican to normal person speech dictionary? Because every time a Republican comes out and says something horrible I get GOP voters telling me that he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently utterly everything they talk about is a metaphor. That's not telling people to love the government as long as Republicans are in charge? You're technically right, it's "only" about him spewing bile and hatred about massacring everything even slightly left-leaning. "It just happens to be Democrat" don't insult my intelligence. The only metaphor here is that all democrats = coyotes. Ain't no deeper metaphor than that, and I'd appreciate it if right-leaning Americans would stop trying to pull doublethink on me whenever a prominent right-leaning figure says something shitty.
The most insulting thing about the Trump presidency is people constantly trying to gaslight me, saying that the public things people say aren't what they actually say because they want to twist it into the most ideal version of it. Duck all responsibility of being associated with fucking horrible people.
I don't think you understand the idea of a different perspectives. Right-leaning Americans aren't trying to deceive you, they're trying to explain that something you don't like isn't evil. If you had different circumstances in your own life, you'd have a different perspective, but we all only have one life to live, so you should at least listen to those with a different perspective without assuming they're trying to deceive you.erttheking said:
The people you think are horrible don't think themselves horrible. Even if they are horrible, they don't think that of themselves. Ted Nugent doesn't think that statement makes him a monster. Donald Trump doesn't think his statements make him a monster. If you refuse to acknowledge a perspective that makes them not monstrous, you're refusing to understand the truth. For your disagreement with someone to have any value, you need to be disagreeing with their actual perspective. You can't just say "sounds to me like that's evil, so they're evil." The vast majority of the time something sounds evil to you, it's because you don't understand them. Very few things are said with the purpose of being evil.
And it isn't a right wing thing to explain people's statements. You just end up getting explanations more often for things you don't understand, because if you did understand, there'd be no need to explain. I don't share your experience of having people justify Republicans to me. Why would they, I understand the Republican perspective. I get the opposite, people justifying the Democratic perspective to me. From my perspective, Bernie Sanders sounds like insane rambling completely disjointed from reality. If a Democrat tries to justify those statements, I don't assume they're trying to trick me into liking Bernie more. They're trying to explain Bernie to me because they have a perspective closer to him than I do and can quite probably offer me insight.
Final point: even if people lie to you, that doesn't make it gaslighting. Gaslighting is making someone question their sanity. People disagreeing with you are trying to make you question your perspective. These are not the same thing. If anything is going to make you question your sanity, it's going to be trying to live in a world where you think half the people are evil and nearly everyone goes along with it as though it's just polite disagreements.