Cloud_Strife
Deity
Try not to damage your spine as you bend over backwards to defend a white supremacist-friendly potus.
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
mitsho
Deity
In literally the announcement speech of his presidential campaign, Trump said of Mexicans that they are rapists and that some may be good people. That was literally the start. You sure do bend over backwards to not have to blame Trump for that rhetoric. I‘m truly shocked by the attitudes in here, that is some kind of willful political ignorance, putting one‘s own political attitude over the objective good of the country. When you can‘t even acknowledge the situation.
As for the Latin-American Gangs, as noted above, Mexican Americans didn‘t really like them. If you go back one step further, you see that their creation was a result of US-American interventions in Central America. Coups in Honduras as an example fostered crime, made young men flee to California and then later go back and found these gangs that the US citizens are now so afraid of. It‘s all very complicated, but has not much to do with gun regulation (you can do it anyways) or the problem of white supremacy (years of bad rhetoric poisons many minds).
As for the attitudes of gun owners. I‘ve been in the military, I can understand these armed shoppers not using their guns in the mall. It would‘ve probably lead to many more innocent deaths as they didn‘t know the situation. Maybe Police would have killed one of them mistaking him or her for the shooter. More probable even, if they were brown skinned... So no, having a gun doesn‘t make you more safe, you would need to be prepared to use it as well. And who can be prepared to use it all the time. That must be a life on adrenaline that doesn‘t seem livable to me.
As for the Latin-American Gangs, as noted above, Mexican Americans didn‘t really like them. If you go back one step further, you see that their creation was a result of US-American interventions in Central America. Coups in Honduras as an example fostered crime, made young men flee to California and then later go back and found these gangs that the US citizens are now so afraid of. It‘s all very complicated, but has not much to do with gun regulation (you can do it anyways) or the problem of white supremacy (years of bad rhetoric poisons many minds).
As for the attitudes of gun owners. I‘ve been in the military, I can understand these armed shoppers not using their guns in the mall. It would‘ve probably lead to many more innocent deaths as they didn‘t know the situation. Maybe Police would have killed one of them mistaking him or her for the shooter. More probable even, if they were brown skinned... So no, having a gun doesn‘t make you more safe, you would need to be prepared to use it as well. And who can be prepared to use it all the time. That must be a life on adrenaline that doesn‘t seem livable to me.
That's an issue of police training then. I've been in firefights and it's not as hard as you would think to determine who has hostile intent towards you and who doesn't. We ran a few missions with the Sons of Iraq, who were a civilian militia and we're equipped and dressed a lot like the insurgents we were fighting and we never had a problem with mistaking them for insurgents.
I do agree though that most gun owners aren't prepared to use their guns if they have to. Like I said, it's more of a fashion statement for them.
Moderator Action: I should remind people that we already have a thread to reheat gun control dialogue. I would hope that OT can find more to talk about during this time than just the same old arguments.
mitsho
Deity
Yeah, I'm not the biggest expert myself, but the most dangerous time in the repetition course of the military (we still have a draft system) was when we took the soldiers to the shooting range after they hadn't touched their guns for one to five years. So, ever since then I've been very very cautious of the capabilities of people.
The US police we know from the news, TV shows and cinema just seems very trigger happy. More authoritarian than "your friend and helper".
The US police we know from the news, TV shows and cinema just seems very trigger happy. More authoritarian than "your friend and helper".
The problem with police in the US is that outside of SWAT teams, they aren't given much tactical training and so they kinda panic in situations like this. At the end of the day, cops are still just civilians, not soldiers, even though some of them think they are soldiers.
I still find it weird that US white supremacy has managed to a continent full of Catholic former European colonies who speak Spanish into a scary alien non-white other. Whiteness is so damn flexible when there's oppression to be done. It's like how Australia used to treat Italians and Greeks as scary racial enemies.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Why are you ascribing reasons to Trump? People ascribe reasons to you all the time and they’re wrong and they are in conversation with you.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
It is the human emotion position.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,784
Surely you of all people should think that if you're carrying around a gun in public it's for the protection of yourself and your family only, with no obligation to help anyone else at all. If running away is the safest thing for you or your loved ones then so be it.
No. Mostly I blame traitors. But they are traitors because they work with the Russians to kill as many Americans as possible while destroying the future of America for the greed of Wall St.
That's why I don't carry a gun in public.
The purpose of allowing people to carry guns in the first place was so everyone could make up "the militia". Part of a militia's duty is to protect their community. By that thinking, if you decide to carry a firearm, you are declaring yourself to be part of the militia, and thus the protection of your community becomes your duty.
If you don't want that duty, then don't carry a gun in public.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Beto has taken a strong stance about all this being an El Paso resident for some time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trump-has-no-place-el-paso/1928207001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trump-has-no-place-el-paso/1928207001/
Just a fast word about American police; every city has a right to it's own police force, every county/parish has a right to it's own police force, every state has a right to it's own police force, the federal government doesn't have a police force..
Plus every state, county/parish, city has different laws.
NYC police have no jurisdiction outside NYC.
So money depends on the state, county/parish, city and their finances. A poor city can't afford tactical training and a richer city may have SWAT and tactical training.
You'll notice from the above clip the big city, high paid officer has no Jurisdiction until the small town sheriff gives it to him.
Last edited:
No, the Americans won.
If Americans wanted to abolish or edit the 2nd amendment they can, it's difficult but they can.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,784
Yes by that thinking you are, but does that thinking make up any concrete part of the law? I genuinely don't know, but if it doesn't then surely people are free to have their own justifications and reasons for wanting to carry a firearm with them, and if that doesn't include defending strangers then that would be their choice would it not? If that's completely legal, then I don't see how you can object to that as someone who feels there is no obligation to care about or protect anyone outside your family and loved ones.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
With the recent evolutions of politics accross the world, I've grown convinced that if there's one thing people can't stand, it is politicians telling us something is impossible when they don't see any valid reason why it would.
Currently, the whole US political class says it's impossible to change the 2nd amendment, but many voters believe they do so because they are financed by the NRA lobbying. As such, if one day a politician would come out and say that it is his objective, I'm sure his balls will be appreciated by an unexpected number of voters. The dude may get killed during the electoral campaign, but his support wouldn't be as marginal as most assume it would.
Berzerker
Deity
Those were Trump's reasons
People deserve a defense when others dont tell the truth about them
Last edited:
No, it doesn't have any basis in law that I am aware of. I am merely giving my own logic on why I feel people who carry guns in public, then do nothing to stop a mass shooter are cowards.
As to why I object to them not doing anything: I believe everyone has their role and I believe everyone should do their best to live up to the responsibilities of that role. And as I said, I believe that if you carry a firearm, you are part of the militia and one of the responsibilities of that role is to protect others from harm by either taking the life of the person causing harm or by potentially laying down your life. So if someone takes on the role of the militia by carrying a gun, then they fail to carry out the responsibilities of that role, it makes me wonder why they took on that role in the first place. They either didn't understand their role, or they are cowards and neither one of those options says anything good about their character.
Candidates have suggested abolishing the 2nd Amendment, and quite recently too. You never hear much about it because as soon as they suggest it, they get laughed out of the room and shouted down. Then you never really hear from them again as suggesting such a radical change effectively ends their political career. And rightfully so if you ask me.
Similar threads
