Quote :

"Act subservient "

No

3/2/2018 11:24:53 PM

Quote :

"Then what is your recommendation to them that addresses their grievances?"

Speaking to this and statement (B), there is the question of what timeframe people are willing to work on. I believe that recourse to legal means has resulted in an acceptable rate of progress, and so I continue to pursue that route. So, again, does everybody else.

Quote :

"So, not until the majority of civilians were being actively thrusted into the position of powerlessness as their peers?"

No, I don't think it requires a numerical majority. But pointless violence is madness or immorality, even in service of a noble goal - and if it's just you and your buddy sending bombs to federal buildings because you're upset about social injustice, then that violence was pointless. You've killed innocent people, probably died yourselves, and your action had no hope of actually addressing the injustice.

Quote :

"There would have to be a mutual disarmament, otherwise we would just have a severely (even moreso) balance of power. Would you agree?"

No. The actual removal of all guns from the society would immediate precipitate the arrival of foreign guns carried by invaders. If you think minorities have it bad now, wait until the Russians are in charge.

Quote :

"So better the state do dictate who can and cannot distribute violence?"

That's basically the definition of a state. They have the monopoly on violence. At this point it isn't a normative statement, it's a declaration of fact. A state exists and will continue to exist; it will have the monopoly on violence; the best we can do is try to shape that state and monopoly in a way that serves us.

3/3/2018 12:49:58 AM

Quote :

"But pointless violence is madness or immorality"

What is "pointless violence?" Earlier you said that sometimes violence IS the answer, and that the decision to carry out violence varies from person to person. If you have something that I need, and I take it from you (even violently) you may not like it, but the act is certainly not pointless. How do we determine when an act of violence is pointless (i.e, motivated by "mental illness"), and when violence is politically motivated?

Quote :

"I believe that recourse to legal means has resulted in an acceptable rate of progress, and so I continue to pursue that route."

What rate would that be? We have the largest rate of incarcerated citizens in the world, and some of the most violent forms of oppression that visit key demographics within our boarders, who then populate our ever expanding carceral state. Is this not an act of violence perpetrated by the state onto individuals? Or is this rate still considered acceptable? Is it just a rounding error?

Quote :

"So, again, does everybody else."

You keep raising this point as if it relieves you of your duty to inspect your views further. C'mon, man. That's just lazy.

Quote :

"No. The actual removal of all guns from the society would immediate precipitate the arrival of foreign guns carried by invaders. If you think minorities have it bad now, wait until the Russians are in charge."

Sooooo......we need guns, not to prevent from tyranny from our own government....but to protect from the tyranny of the.......Russians? You think that ole musket of yours is gonna stop Comrade Vladimir Badasski? So it's not white nationalism that thrusts forward our desire for gun ownership, just good 'ole fashion regular nationalism? A fear of foreign hoards? Brown people should be content with the injustices they face today from the US government because its preferable to the injustices they would face from the Russian government? How does that check out?

Quote :

"They have the monopoly on violence. At this point it isn't a normative statement, it's a declaration of fact. A state exists and will continue to exist; it will have the monopoly on violence; the best we can do is try to shape that state and monopoly in a way that serves us."

Okay, so let's examine this:

1) Only the state is allowed to project violence
2) Gun ownership is supposed to be a check against state violence
3) The state actively does violence to minorities, but there's not enough popular support to stand opposed to it.
4) Violence done back to the state is pointless and has no ability to actually or structurally changing anything the state does..




So what the fuck is the gun for?

3/3/2018 3:54:49 AM

Quote :

"4) Violence done back to the state is pointless and has no ability to actually or structurally changing anything the state does.."

naw

3/3/2018 6:43:42 AM

Politically motivated violence with no reasonable hope of success is pointless.

Not all politically motivated violence is pointless, because sometimes it has a reasonable hope of success. The Revolutionary War, obviously. Even the Confederacy had a chance of winning, so the civil war wasn't pointless on those grounds (obviously the nature of the cause is a different matter).

I keep mentioning that my belief is held by the majority, not so that I can relieve myself of having to think about that position, but by way of pointing out that the fraction of Americans who might want violent political action is so small that it has no reasonable hope of success in its aims and should therefore refrain from violence. Evidently, even the majority of those people agree, because they're not out doing violence against the government.

Quote :

"Sooooo......we need guns, not to prevent from tyranny from our own government....but to protect from the tyranny of the.......Russians?"

No, you fucking nitwit. I made a remark about removing all civilian guns. You said we'd have to remove all the government guns, too. I said that if we did that, we'd immediately have to contend with the Russian government's guns.

Give me a fucking break. Every time I say anything, you immediately change the scope of the conversation.

Quote :

"So what the fuck is the gun for?"

What the fuck is anything you own for? Go through the list. You need all that shit?

A citizen should not need an ironclad justification for everything they own or risk having it seized by the state.

3/3/2018 9:53:21 AM

Quote :

"A citizen should not need an ironclad justification for everything they own or risk having it seized by the state."

3/3/2018 10:10:44 AM

NRA members are prone to shooting themselves in the foot.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/during-nra-conventions-gun-injuries-drop-20-nationwide-63-in-hosting-state/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773

(correlation, causation)

3/3/2018 10:50:09 AM

Quote :

"My main reason for supporting the 2nd Amendment is that I don't think you should be able to take something from somebody without justifying why they should have to give it up"

Outside of JHC, who also advocates taking guns away from cops (and teaching them Judo?), nobody here is in favor of taking anything.

3/3/2018 11:02:30 AM

Quote :

"Not all politically motivated violence is pointless, because sometimes it has a reasonable hope of success. "

This is an admission that might makes right. You are arguing that force should be applied only on practical terms rather than for philosophical terms or moral terms. If an an oppressed underclass does not have enough might, that they then don't have a reasonable expectation of success. So where does this leave them? Because if you believe that "Politically motivated violence with no reasonable hope of success is pointless," how is this different from saying, "Resistance is futile."

Quote :

"I keep mentioning that my belief is held by the majority, not so that I can relieve myself of having to think about that position, but by way of pointing out that the fraction of Americans who might want violent political action is so small that it has no reasonable hope of success in its aims and should therefore refrain from violence"

So then we're back to my earlier question. How did the majority get up there? How did they receive the benefits and rights and expectations that they received? Was it not through violence?

This line of reasoning puts oppressed minorities in an unwinnable situation: They must first try to win over the sympathies of a majority who see their struggle, but do not feel sufficiently compelled enough to correct it. Or they must act on their own, gathering enough might and weaponry to try and achieve a "reasonable hope of success."

Quote :

"What the fuck is anything you own for? Go through the list. You need all that shit?"

I'm not asking you to defend everything you own. I'm asking you to defend a right. Because a right afforded to some that is not afforded to all is not a right at all, it is a privilege.

Quote :

"I made a remark about removing all civilian guns. You said we'd have to remove all the government guns, too. I said that if we did that, we'd immediately have to contend with the Russian government's guns."

Yes, I understood your position on this. The state needs guns to protect their monopoly of power over their own citizenry. But the citizenry, which is made up of majorities and minorities, are afforded different levels of access to individual power. They are encouraged/discouraged to exercise their individual power unequally, and forced to compete with one another to avoid the monopoly of force that is only guaranteed to the state. The losers, in this scenario, ought to be content with their place for fear of a greater projection of force from a more tyrannical, "other" government.

3/3/2018 11:23:28 AM

Quote :

"4) Violence done back to the state is pointless and has no ability to actually or structurally changing anything the state does.. "

our government thought this after Ruby Ridge. they started second guessing themselves after Waco, and by the time the OKC bombing occurred they were scared shitless and ready to find a foreign boogeyman again.

3/3/2018 5:47:47 PM

Quote :

" Outside of JHC, who also advocates taking guns away from cops (and teaching them Judo?), nobody here is in favor of taking anything."

me, not all cops should have guns

[Edited on March 3, 2018 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2018 6:18:51 PM

Context was American citizens, not cops.

3/3/2018 6:34:24 PM

How can anyone question the effectiveness of guns to stand up to the government after Bundy ranch?

3/3/2018 7:17:41 PM

I mean, tell that to the Philadelphia PD, who dropped a bomb over a row house and incinerated an entire city block against Black Radicals (MOVE) in the 80s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RFW9KuL-nk

3/3/2018 8:32:27 PM

Because they weren't getting shit on before and after that?

It's not a smooth path ever, fearing a high body count usually only happens after an event with one. Ruby Ridge and Waco happened before Bundy ranch

3/4/2018 8:08:02 AM

Very enlightening:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings

And this just might be the best interactive infographic ever:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america

3/5/2018 3:54:02 AM

The florida bill is so pointless but I doubt it even passes.

Raises age to 21. Adds 3 day waiting period and bans bump stocks.

3/8/2018 12:56:23 PM

Great illustration of liberal logic

3/8/2018 8:54:02 PM

Sick burn

3/8/2018 9:22:51 PM

https://vimeo.com/261259711

Veterans For Gun Reform PSA from MIKE TEEVEE on Vimeo.

3/24/2018 3:25:53 AM

The argument of "if he hadn't been bullied he wouldn't have killed people" its just so incredibly terrible on every level, and is only used to avoid actually talking about gun safety and not to solve any problems.

How would people have reacted if in October 2001 people went around saying "if Americans had been nicer to Islamic extremists then 9-11 woudn't have happened." Maybe they did and we just didn't have facebook to know about it. But it's still beyond a terrible thing to say.

3/31/2018 2:05:35 AM

^terrible but accurate

Quote :

"In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.[11]"

3/31/2018 7:41:41 AM

^5

While I understand and somewhat appreciate the argument of looks vs function and the illogical arguments to go with... it's pretty bad when your meme goes from bolt action to a semi-auto with a detachable magazine, and rails for other accessories. These are two very different firearms.

4/2/2018 9:29:03 AM

Nope. Those are both semi autos. The top one is an M1 Garand. The bottom one is an M1A, pretty much the same rifle except it is chambered in 308 instead of 30-06 and it uses a detachable box mag instead of 8 round en bloc clips.

4/2/2018 9:46:50 AM

its a shit cartoon then, because the top one look like it has a bolt

4/2/2018 11:38:06 AM

it's an adjustable rear sight, and it's an extremely distinguishing feature on M1A/M14/M1-garand rifles.

[Edited on April 2, 2018 at 5:39 PM. Reason : I've got my great-grandfather's M1 Garand and my own M1A. They're incredibly similar rifles.]

4/2/2018 5:32:18 PM

^^it does have a bolt. it just doesn't have a manually-operated bolt. AR-15s have bolts too.

4/2/2018 7:34:37 PM

I mean I guess the issue is that an M1 Garand isn't a hunting rifle, it's a battle rifle that can be confused for a hunting rifle by people who aren't informed.

4/2/2018 7:49:25 PM

functions the same as any other semi-automatic rifle chambered in .30-06. my wife deer hunts with a semi-auto .30-06. so did her grandfather.

"hunting rifle" is just as dumb an arbitrary as "assault weapon".

[Edited on April 2, 2018 at 8:05 PM. Reason : s]

4/2/2018 8:04:38 PM

M1 Garand, COMING TO A SCHOOL SHOOTING NEAR YOU!!!!

4/2/2018 8:29:23 PM

Quote :

"I mean I guess the issue is that an M1 Garand isn't a hunting rifle, it's a battle rifle that can be confused for a hunting rifle by people who aren't informed."

Plenty of battle rifles make good hunting rifles. I'm sure plenty of deer and elk have been taken with Garands. I wouldn't use mine for hunting due to it being heavy, a family heirloom, and not a rifle I want to take out in bad weather or risk dinging up in a tree stand. For others, the extra weight of the gun makes the recoil of 30-06 easier to handle.

There are a slew of people hunting deer with ARs, and I wouldn't recommend anything else for hunting coyotes or feral hogs.

4/2/2018 9:00:41 PM

Don't know much about guns, but a guy in Kure Beach was open carrying at the table across from me. He looked like he'd had a few (possibly me stereotyping on appearances) but then proceeded to have 2 beers with dinner. That's not legal right?

4/2/2018 9:48:13 PM

In NC, you can't open carry in a restaurant that is serving alcohol. But, you can drink and open carry at other places where it is legal to do both.

https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-269.3.html

[Edited on April 2, 2018 at 9:58 PM. Reason : yep, found it ]

actually, the way that reads, it seems to me like you can open carry in a restaurant serving alcohol if you have a CHP. now, it's also illegal to carry a concealed handgun with a BAC over 0.00, so maybe he's in some dumb loophole. his CHP allows him to carrry in a restaurant serving alcohol, but since he's open carrying, he can drink. you'd need a judge to decipher that one.

[Edited on April 2, 2018 at 10:05 PM. Reason : adsf]

[Edited on April 2, 2018 at 10:07 PM. Reason : it's obvious the intent of the law, but laws are usually not written well]

4/2/2018 9:54:06 PM

Interesting thanks. Thought it seemed pretty illegal, although I don't really care.. Just more curious.

4/2/2018 10:28:18 PM

Quote :

"Plenty of battle rifles make good hunting rifles."

Who could have guessed that rifles designed for hunting humans are also well suited for hunting other species of mammals.

4/2/2018 10:56:02 PM

Quote :

"you can drink and open carry at other places where it is legal to do both"

It should be illegal everywhere to carry at all, open or concealed, if you're going to have even a single drop of alcohol.

4/3/2018 3:09:47 AM

So you don't think I should be able to sit at my kitchen table and clean a gun while drinking a beer?

4/3/2018 6:52:28 AM

No, because that's dangerous and dumb.

4/3/2018 7:59:44 AM

Quote :

"^^it does have a bolt. it just doesn't have a manually-operated bolt. AR-15s have bolts too."

is it a law that gun nuts have to be pedants?

4/3/2018 8:45:50 AM

I’d rather my neighbors not take downers and clean their guns.

4/3/2018 10:05:34 AM

what's so dangerous about an unloaded disassembled gun?

4/3/2018 11:39:47 AM

nothing, no one ever shoots themselves or someone else accidentally while cleaning their gun

4/3/2018 11:55:38 AM

^^are you purposefully being obtuse?

4/3/2018 12:57:12 PM

Huh? I agree that drinkin' and packin' should be illegal (and i think is, in most places)...and you are an idiot if you get intoxicated and go to disassemble a gun (treat every weapon as if it were loaded)...

but drinking a beer at your kitchen table while tediously scrubbing carbon and dirt out of little corners and crevices, with a pile of parts in front of you, is not dangerous.

4/4/2018 12:10:49 AM

Obviously I meant carrying out in public, and all of you arguing about disassembled weapons let yourselves get pulled off topic by someone who would rather avoid what's actually going on.

4/4/2018 3:46:35 AM

^^well, duh. but far too many don't get the order correct. hence, dead children and friends. Or at the end of the process, after 8 keerssss liaaaaghts, you slap it back together, throw in a mag and give'r a dry run or two to check'r out... oops, forgot the mag was loaded, sorry son, your 8 year old sister just done got her brains blowed up. Oh well, let's get'on done to hooters fur some fooootbawl and cold bud liaaaaght.

I don't understand the need, want, or defense, of ever mixing firearms and alcohol. Ever. Sure, you know what you're doing. You're safe. Until that one time with a lapse in judgement due to impairment. Why risk it? Why defend it?

As an owner of firearms, I don't get you people sometimes. I know I'm safe with a firearm. But part of that mental state is knowing when / how to handle firearms and taking every opportunity to reduce the risk of a fuck up.

[Edited on April 4, 2018 at 7:00 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2018 6:59:28 AM

^^

4/4/2018 12:06:26 PM

^^^no, that was not obvious. You said everywhere and a single drop. I asked for clarification. Thank you for clarifying.

4/4/2018 2:07:36 PM

yep, all pedants

4/4/2018 2:25:12 PM

Having/owning a gun is not the same as carrying one. Laying your gun out in disassembled pieces is not the same as carrying it around outside of your home.

4/4/2018 2:35:29 PM