[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Y'all are fucking retarded over there.

snip

How about praying for god to have the people elect sane people who will pass sane gun-control legislation? It's okay because it's still god doing it then.

I don't know man, gun ownership is defended and safeguarded with a zeal that is usually reserved for religion. One might even say that for all intents and purposes, the gun IS god.

Oh shit we're in Zardoz...

 

[Agema]

Oh shit we're in Zardoz...

I sort of love that movie, even whilst I don't necessarily think it's that good.

I really liked some of the batshit movies where someone just chucked a load of weird ideas onto celluloid and ran with it. I sometimes feel modern movies are a little too... safe and controlled. I get why - studios are wary of chucking millions at something that'll bomb when they can make a safe, join-the-dots, by-the-numbers piece - but we lose something along the way, too.

 

[Leg End]

I don't know man, gun ownership is defended and safeguarded with a zeal that is usually reserved for religion. One might even say that for all intents and purposes, the gun IS god.

I feel this is appropriate.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I don't know man, gun ownership is defended and safeguarded with a zeal that is usually reserved for religion. One might even say that for all intents and purposes, the gun IS god.

I feel this is appropriate.

Yes, the Murder /k/ube is our version of the Kaʿbah.

AVE NEX ALEA! AVE NEX ALEA! AVE NEX ALEA!

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I don't know man, gun ownership is defended and safeguarded with a zeal that is usually reserved for religion. One might even say that for all intents and purposes, the gun IS god.

I feel this is appropriate.

At last, we finally know the origins of the Borg.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't know man, gun ownership is defended and safeguarded with a zeal that is usually reserved for religion. One might even say that for all intents and purposes, the gun IS god.

I feel this is appropriate.

At last, we finally know the origins of the Borg.

Well, you also need some humans inside the guns for Borg

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Well, you also need some humans inside the guns for Borg

You see that man praying at it, ready to jump in.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Oh shit we're in Zardoz...

I sort of love that movie, even whilst I don't necessarily think it's that good.

I really liked some of the batshit movies where someone just chucked a load of weird ideas onto celluloid and ran with it. I sometimes feel modern movies are a little too... safe and controlled. I get why - studios are wary of chucking millions at something that'll bomb when they can make a safe, join-the-dots, by-the-numbers piece - but we lose something along the way, too.

I do feel companies like Disney could stand to be filled with a few more risk takers. Try out this weird new film, maybe it'll be a success, critics and audiences love it, rake in the cash...and if not, you know any loss will be offset by the billions you just made from whatever the latest Marvel movie or live-action remake was

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

2 guys on a car are shooting up Odessa and Midland. This should just be a thread dedicated to mass shootings. Let's see how far it will go till the end of the year.

Yea, and this time the guy had previously failed a background check and was able to go get one where no background check was required due to faulty background check and registration laws.
Like I said before this could help:
1) Requiring gun registration and licensing for all firearms.
2) Requiring background checks and registering every single time a firearm changes hands. This means including but not limited to:
a. Background check and new registration for any and all sales of firearms including gun shows, online, garage sales and yes, even to a friend or family member.
b. Background check and new registration anytime a firearm is given as a gift even to family and friends.
c. Background check and new registration any time a gun is left in inheritance.

3)Officers being able to confiscate any firearm that is in the possession of someone other than it's registered owner and be able to fine/ charge someone for carrying an unregistered firearm. The registered owners of the firearm can come claim it from the police if they want it back. Treat it like a stolen car with the same penalties and requirements.

We need to allow the police to actually be able to do something about firearms on the streets rather than keeping them powerless to help with their hands tied. Also stupid laws like Texas has that allow felons to have firearms in their homes needs to be ended and all the laws allowing guns in more places needs to be overturned. When I was a bartender, I was damn glad people were not allowed to bring guns in to the club. People do not need to be worrying about who is going to pull a gun when they are agitated. Guns do not belong in bars, hospitals or schools and it is stupid as hell for people to think they should be there. Even in the wild west they weren't that stupid, that was why they banned them from places in the first place due to all hell breaking loose when it was allowed. Stupid politicians seem to think that this wasn't tried already, it was originally that way and failed miserably and why they made the bans in the first place, but then again if you fail to learn from history you will be doomed to repeat it.


The sheer stupidity and necessity of it all is really the worst part about this. You keep having people say nonsense like " you can't do anything to stop it" when we have nations all over the place that already did while people are willing to just turn a blind eye and allow people to be slaughtered and do nothing. Like somehow a hunk of metal is more important than the lives of their loved ones. Of course nothing happens over night, but over time, everyone would be better for it they just have to be willing to make the needed changes to get us there.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Well, you also need some humans inside the guns for Borg

You see that man praying at it, ready to jump in.

Can we put these people in it too?

That is just so... disturbing.

 

[CaitSeith]

From Texas representative Matt Schaefer: "As an elected official with a vote in Austin, let me tell you what I am NOT going to do. I am NOT going to use the evil acts of a handful of people to diminish the God-given rights of my fellow Texans. Period. None of these so-called gun-control solutions will work to stop a person with evil intent. What can we do? YES to praying for victims. YES to praying for protection. YES to praying that God would transform the hearts of people with evil intent."

People have been praying for thousands of years. I bet those shooting victims were praying to live. Doesn't seem like anyone's there to answer those prayers. But hey, when you'd rather believe in an imaginary daddy figure in the sky than actually DO something about people being murdered....

Literally telling citizens to pray for their lives...

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Texas!

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Can we put these people in it too?

That is just so... disturbing.

Thats the strangest hen do I think I've ever seen

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

When I said "the gun IS god", I didn't expect this. Ok no, I did, but not quite to this degree.

What's with the crowns tho? Or the hot pink robes, or whatever those are?

 

[CaitSeith]

Well, you also need some humans inside the guns for Borg

You see that man praying at it, ready to jump in.

Can we put these people in it too?

That is just so... disturbing.

At least they are ready for when the good guy with a gun appears...

 

[Trunkage]

So, just to recap. Your definition of Conservative is a desire to go back to a certain point in the past.

No. To be conservative is to maintain established practices and resist change. For the most part, that's preserving the present, not going back to the past. Sometimes, it's advocating for policies of the past, if it's recent enough past that one could reasonably believe they'd still work in today's context, but it's not as though someone advocating for feudalism would be a conservative.

I think that's a definition. I don't think that's what happen in practice. For example, Conservatives have lost the same sex marriage debate, so now they are talking about 'religious freedoms' which seems to be letting Christians say what they want and feel without consequences (which seems very much like safe spaces to me, but that's beside the point.) So Trump and my country are drafting legislation to do that. So, they are pining for the past (two or three decade ago when gay was used as an insult constantly). They're taking rights away from employers. They're using the political process to....

Also, do you think that McCarthyism is Progressive? Using public institution to drive towards the 60s culture?

Do you mean McCarthyism as anti-communism, or McCarthyism as the tactic of demonizing a group and then branding people you don't like with that label so you can persecute them? The former isn't progressive, I think by definition that anyone who is progressive or conservative is anti-communist, as communism seeks not to preserve or even reform society, but eliminate society as we know it altogether. The latter might be progressive, there are certainly self-proclaimed "progressives" now willing to dishonestly identify anyone they don't like as a white supremacists to try and chase us out of popular culture entirely. But it wouldn't be progressive because of the means, it would be progressive because of the intent. McCarthyist practices in defense of the status quo could be called conservative, McCarthyist practices with the goal of reforming society to something new would be progressive.

Ah... No wonder you don't like Progressives. Your definition is ANYONE doing anything that you (and I) would deem wrong while using the political process. Your definition has nothing to do with the left at all. Your definition has Hitler, Thatcher, Washington, Stalin, Reagan, Mao, Clinton, Castro and Trump all listed as Progressive. All of these people used the political process to change the way their country worked. I.e. through social reform. They all definitely dishonestly identified people (eg. Reagan/Thatcher and Communism, Washington and England, Stalin/Castro and America, Trump and Mexicans) that were deliberately targeted to chase people out of the culture.

Let me state this clearly. I don't like people being demonised (falsely). I can agree with you there. I also think that there is an issue with possible White Supremacist. Some are and some aren't. There has to be some sort of process to sort it out. As messy as it is, this is the only way (because the alternative is the government deciding for us or going through the courts). This is the cost of Freedom of Speech. Some will always be misidentified. (And you clearly think this happens to most people, I think this happens to only a few.) That doesn't mean would should ban the process, because all sides think the consequences to actions is important. It's a cornerstone of society. But this process may need to be refined. And, since its not centralised, I don't know how anything anyone does will improve this. That's the nature of decentralisation.

 

[Marik2]

When I said "the gun IS god", I didn't expect this. Ok no, I did, but not quite to this degree.

What's with the crowns tho? Or the hot pink robes, or whatever those are?

It's supposed to be a reference to a quote from Revelation.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/1/17067894/church-bullet-crowns-ar15-world-peace-unification-sanctuary-moonies-moon

 

[tstorm823]

A major plank of conservative thought throughout centuries is to believe that society is naturally hierarchical (the more talented individual should earn more, for instance, or that the king rules by divine mandate), and that the hierarchy is desirable for society. Such a society depends on order and authority, and discipline and obedience to authority is thus desirable. One thing that can be observed very frequently in conservatives, even small government, is much higher levels of respect for the police and military: both, of course, institutions heavily representing authority, hierarchy and order.

I would certainly take the word "naturally" out of that sentence. I wouldn't disagree with the notion the hierarchy is natural in a sense, but the societal hierarchy does not need to relate to nature in any way, and to one who thinks society makes the world better than if things were left to nature, its silly to describe the status of society as natural. Also, I don't know anyone who thinks the more talented should earn more outside the situation where others benefit from that talent. As a conservative, I'd say the person who provides more for others should earn more in return, and talent might have nothing to do with that.

And the much higher levels of respect for police and military isn't because conservatives especially respect authority. It's that liberals blame authority for every problem and see even a neutral opinion of an authority figure as some kind of butt-kissing. Conservatives respect police and military out of admiration for self-sacrifice and volunteerism, an admiration that isn't unique to conservatives, it's just left-leaning people have have any respect for that specific self-sacrifice overridden by hatred for authority.

Ah... No wonder you don't like Progressives.

I have, in this thread, identified as a progressive by my own definition.

Your definition is ANYONE doing anything that you (and I) would deem wrong while using the political process.

No, no it isn't,

Your definition has nothing to do with the left at all.

This is accidentally true. Left vs right is desire for flat power structure vs desire for hierarchy, there is no reason you can't have right-wing progressivism and left-wing conservatism.

Your definition has Hitler, Thatcher, Washington, Stalin, Reagan, Mao, Clinton, Castro and Trump all listed as Progressive. All of these people used the political process to change the way their country worked. I.e. through social reform.

No, that's not accurate. Most of that list, especially the contentious ones, were revolutionary figures. Reform is not revolution. Reform is gradual and patient. Revolution is sudden and violent. Reform builds out of the things that came before. Revolution eliminates what came before. Neither Hitler nor Washington were progressive. They asserted their visions of their nations through immediate force.

And you clearly think this happens to most people, I think this happens to only a few.

Perhaps don't accuse me of defending white supremacists.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, that's not accurate. Most of that list, especially the contentious ones, were revolutionary figures. Reform is not revolution. Reform is gradual and patient. Revolution is sudden and violent. Reform builds out of the things that came before. Revolution eliminates what came before. Neither Hitler nor Washington were progressive. They asserted their visions of their nations through immediate force.

Ok, so then by your criteria Rosa Luxemburg [https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm] is progressive.

 

[Saelune]

Ah... No wonder you don't like Progressives.

I have, in this thread, identified as a progressive by my own definition.

Your definition is ANYONE doing anything that you (and I) would deem wrong while using the political process.

No, no it isn't,

Your definition has nothing to do with the left at all.

This is accidentally true. Left vs right is desire for flat power structure vs desire for hierarchy, there is no reason you can't have right-wing progressivism and left-wing conservatism.

Your definition has Hitler, Thatcher, Washington, Stalin, Reagan, Mao, Clinton, Castro and Trump all listed as Progressive. All of these people used the political process to change the way their country worked. I.e. through social reform.

No, that's not accurate. Most of that list, especially the contentious ones, were revolutionary figures. Reform is not revolution. Reform is gradual and patient. Revolution is sudden and violent. Reform builds out of the things that came before. Revolution eliminates what came before. Neither Hitler nor Washington were progressive. They asserted their visions of their nations through immediate force.

And you clearly think this happens to most people, I think this happens to only a few.

Perhaps don't accuse me of defending white supremacists.

Your own definitions are not factual ones though.

If you dont want to be accused of defending white supremacists, then you should not defend white supremacists. You have defended Trump constantly, and Trump is a white supremacist.

 

[Saelune]

Well, you also need some humans inside the guns for Borg

You see that man praying at it, ready to jump in.

Can we put these people in it too?

That is just so... disturbing.

I actually dont think everyone should have their guns taken away.

I think these people should have their guns taken away though.