SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Tobleste]

So what does freedom mean in your mind?

I mean, what does it mean in yours?

1. It's viewed favourably by practically every nation on earth but the US. You may as well say the metric system is fascist.

Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's a good thing, this should be really obvious.

Well I asked first.

That wasn't my point, that should be really obvious..

[Proctopeo]

I mean, what does it mean in yours?


Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's a good thing, this should be really obvious.

Well I asked first.

You asked The Emerald Legion, not me.

That wasn't my point, that should be really obvious..

You were still going for an argument from popularity, so that doesn't really affect my point.

[The Emerald Legion]

Ok, so, disarming our people, (a policy that's viewed favorably in autocratic nations historically, such as the Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany etc.) can be viewed as a fascistic policy imo. Especially when it's in violation of our constitution, our way of life, and personal freedom. Notice that I didn't accuse leftists of being fascists, you can support some fascistic policies without being fascist, just like you may support socialist policies without being a socialist. Taking away people's right, and ability to defend themselves without their opinions on it mattering is an autocratic policy, no if's and's or buts about it. As to "making gun controls" we already have them. What's going on now is labeling political opponents as terrorists in order to silence and discredit them, a decidedly fascistic policy, as well as politicians who have no idea what their talking about making emotional, ignorant demands about forcibly disarming Americans, a violation of their constitutional rights, and a fascistic policy imo.

1. It's viewed favourably by practically every nation on earth but the US. You may as well say the metric system is fascist.

2. Many people do support gun control and complete public support for a policy has never been a requirement for it.

3. Doesn't the NRA regularly demonise it's opponents? I don't think the NRA are terrorists but they are awful and if this upsets them, then it's a good cause.

You act like other nations aren't totalitarian hellholes with no rights.

Many people also supported enslaving blacks. Just because an idea has support doesn't mean it's good.

[Tobleste]

Well I asked first.

You asked The Emerald Legion, not me.

That wasn't my point, that should be really obvious..

You were still going for an argument from popularity, so that doesn't really affect my point.

I wasn't going for an argument from popularity. He said that gun control was fascist because fascist countries have used it. I pointed out that everyone but the US uses it. Assuming he doesn't believe that everyone bar less than half of modern Americans is fascist (though I wouldn't put it past you guys), that means that gun control is no more fascist than it is socialist, conservative, social Democrat, green, Christian Democrat or any other political ideology. He may as well say car production is fascist because of Volkswagen.

[Tobleste]

1. It's viewed favourably by practically every nation on earth but the US. You may as well say the metric system is fascist.

2. Many people do support gun control and complete public support for a policy has never been a requirement for it.

3. Doesn't the NRA regularly demonise it's opponents? I don't think the NRA are terrorists but they are awful and if this upsets them, then it's a good cause.

You act like other nations aren't totalitarian hellholes with no rights.

Many people also supported enslaving blacks. Just because an idea has support doesn't mean it's good.

They're not. Are you serious with this point?

You're misunderstanding me. My point was that it's not neccessarily autocratic or fascist just because some Americans dislike it. America could amend it's constitution in a perfectly democratic way.

[Proctopeo]

You asked The Emerald Legion, not me.


You were still going for an argument from popularity, so that doesn't really affect my point.

I wasn't going for an argument from popularity. He said that gun control was fascist because fascist countries have used it. I pointed out that everyone but the US uses it. Assuming he doesn't believe that everyone bar less than half of modern Americans is fascist (though I wouldn't put it past you guys), that means that gun control is no more fascist than it is socialist, conservative, social Democrat, green, Christian Democrat or any other political ideology. He may as well say car production is fascist because of Volkswagen.

Fair enough I suppose, but you can't deny that it is a common tactic of repression; not fascist, of course, but a suppressive tool common among all governments scared of their own people. Historically, this was often done to prevent resistance from targets of government oppression, such as ethnic or political minorities. In the present, these cases are becoming rarer as governments extend their fear to the whole of their population (the excuse of """"public safety"""" or some nonsense like that is common, but not necessary).

[Tobleste]

I wasn't going for an argument from popularity. He said that gun control was fascist because fascist countries have used it. I pointed out that everyone but the US uses it. Assuming he doesn't believe that everyone bar less than half of modern Americans is fascist (though I wouldn't put it past you guys), that means that gun control is no more fascist than it is socialist, conservative, social Democrat, green, Christian Democrat or any other political ideology. He may as well say car production is fascist because of Volkswagen.

Fair enough I suppose, but you can't deny that it is a common tactic of repression; not fascist, of course, but a suppressive tool common among all governments scared of their own people. Historically, this was often done to prevent resistance from targets of government oppression, such as ethnic or political minorities. In the present, these cases are becoming rarer as governments extend their fear to the whole of their population (the excuse of """"public safety"""" or some nonsense like that is common, but not necessary).

It is but given the extremism of many outspoken gun control opponents, I think they're more likely to support an authoritarian leader than oppose one. Trump is proving that. As long as he let's them keep their guns, they'll back him regardless of what he does.

[Proctopeo]

Fair enough I suppose, but you can't deny that it is a common tactic of repression; not fascist, of course, but a suppressive tool common among all governments scared of their own people. Historically, this was often done to prevent resistance from targets of government oppression, such as ethnic or political minorities. In the present, these cases are becoming rarer as governments extend their fear to the whole of their population (the excuse of """"public safety"""" or some nonsense like that is common, but not necessary).

It is but given the extremism of many outspoken gun control opponents, I think they're more likely to support an authoritarian leader than oppose one.

It depends on the policies of the leader, honestly.
But, one that doesn't restrict firearm ownership is likely to fall to either his military or his people regardless of if a small minority are fine with him just because he doesn't do so.

Trump is proving that.

IIRC he has come out in support of gun control, he just has refused to act. Likely because he knows his continued political career requires the support of gun owners.

As long as he let's them keep their guns, they'll back him regardless of what he does.

And on the flip side, the more extreme gun control proponents would certainly support most anyone as long as they keep the children safe from the AR-15s, which I hear is named for how many kids it can kill in a second. /s on that last part, but people act like it's a fucking pocket nuke

[Medwind]

Fair enough I suppose, but you can't deny that it is a common tactic of repression; not fascist, of course, but a suppressive tool common among all governments scared of their own people. Historically, this was often done to prevent resistance from targets of government oppression, such as ethnic or political minorities. In the present, these cases are becoming rarer as governments extend their fear to the whole of their population (the excuse of """"public safety"""" or some nonsense like that is common, but not necessary).

It is but given the extremism of many outspoken gun control opponents, I think they're more likely to support an authoritarian leader than oppose one. Trump is proving that. As long as he let's them keep their guns, they'll back him regardless of what he does.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/autocratic
I said it was autocratic, and referenced the USSR as well. You can't deny that forcibly preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms, seizing firearms, limiting the ability to purchase firearms, etc. is autocratic can you?

au·to·crat·ic (ô′tə-krăt′ĭk)
adj.
1. Relating to or being an autocrat.
2. Tending to impose one's will on others in an insistent or arrogant manner; domineering. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

[The Emerald Legion]

You act like other nations aren't totalitarian hellholes with no rights.

Many people also supported enslaving blacks. Just because an idea has support doesn't mean it's good.

They're not. Are you serious with this point?

You're misunderstanding me. My point was that it's not neccessarily autocratic or fascist just because some Americans dislike it. America could amend it's constitution in a perfectly democratic way.

They are. Most nations lack our freedoms over here in the US. As evidenced by you facing legal penalties for misgendering someone in Canada. As evidenced by you being arrested for unpopular speech over in several parts of Europe. As evidenced by the surveillance state in England.


It's possible for Democracies to be used for Fascist and Tyrannical means. Remember, the Nazis manipulated a democratic government to get into power.

[Fahran]

We're misusing the words fascist and autocratic again, and I say that as someone who opposes the regulation of semi-automatic weapons and ammunitions as among the most worthless and pernicious forms of security theater.

[Tobleste]

They're not. Are you serious with this point?

You're misunderstanding me. My point was that it's not neccessarily autocratic or fascist just because some Americans dislike it. America could amend it's constitution in a perfectly democratic way.

They are. Most nations lack our freedoms over here in the US. As evidenced by you facing legal penalties for misgendering someone in Canada. As evidenced by you being arrested for unpopular speech over in several parts of Europe. As evidenced by the surveillance state in England.


It's possible for Democracies to be used for Fascist and Tyrannical means. Remember, the Nazis manipulated a democratic government to get into power.

I'm pretty sure you don't face legal penalties for 'misgendering' someone in Canada and you can take the right to shout the n word and own weapons that kill people. The rest of the world is happier with the right to have healthcare and, you know, every other type of freedom.

[Tobleste]

It is but given the extremism of many outspoken gun control opponents, I think they're more likely to support an authoritarian leader than oppose one.

It depends on the policies of the leader, honestly.
But, one that doesn't restrict firearm ownership is likely to fall to either his military or his people regardless of if a small minority are fine with him just because he doesn't do so.

Trump is proving that.

IIRC he has come out in support of gun control, he just has refused to act. Likely because he knows his continued political career requires the support of gun owners.

As long as he let's them keep their guns, they'll back him regardless of what he does.

And on the flip side, the more extreme gun control proponents would certainly support most anyone as long as they keep the children safe from the AR-15s, which I hear is named for how many kids it can kill in a second. /s on that last part, but people act like it's a fucking pocket nuke

Do they? As far as I can tell, even the stronger gun control supporters in the US are pretty lax by international standards. They also haven't supported an actual wannabe autocrat like Trump. For all the NRA's talk about freedom, the only freedom their supporters seem to care about is guns.

[Tobleste]

It is but given the extremism of many outspoken gun control opponents, I think they're more likely to support an authoritarian leader than oppose one. Trump is proving that. As long as he let's them keep their guns, they'll back him regardless of what he does.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/autocratic
I said it was autocratic, and referenced the USSR as well. You can't deny that forcibly preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms, seizing firearms, limiting the ability to purchase firearms, etc. is autocratic can you?

au·to·crat·ic (ô′tə-krăt′ĭk)
adj.
1. Relating to or being an autocrat.
2. Tending to impose one's will on others in an insistent or arrogant manner; domineering. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

That's kind of how society works. There's rules. If it has democratic support, it isn't autocratic unless it breaches some sort of human right and only gun nuts think that guns are a human right.

[Aureumterra]

They are. Most nations lack our freedoms over here in the US. As evidenced by you facing legal penalties for misgendering someone in Canada. As evidenced by you being arrested for unpopular speech over in several parts of Europe. As evidenced by the surveillance state in England.


It's possible for Democracies to be used for Fascist and Tyrannical means. Remember, the Nazis manipulated a democratic government to get into power.

I'm pretty sure you don't face legal penalties for 'misgendering' someone in Canada and you can take the right to shout the n word and own weapons that kill people. The rest of the world is happier with the right to have healthcare and, you know, every other type of freedom.

Good healthcare and guns aren't mutually exclusive

[Crymmune]

Listen. I believe in the 2nd amendment. I don't want to ban guns. However, the NRA should not be receiving any support by gun owners.
They knowingly let Russians trying to influence the 2016 election into the political circle of republicans, and one of them is in prison. They're also accused of tax fraud.
There are far better gun advocacy groups, and the NRA needs to die.

[Fahran]

Do they? As far as I can tell, even the stronger gun control supporters in the US are pretty lax by international standards. They also haven't supported an actual wannabe autocrat like Trump. For all the NRA's talk about freedom, the only freedom their supporters seem to care about is guns.

What freedoms has Trump taken away from American citizens that were present in 2005? I'm a touch wary of these assertions that the United States has fallen to autocracy or dictatorship. We have a domineering leader who was democratically elected. He has not threatened to pack the courts as the DNC has suggested, he has not threatened to coerce citizens into selling their firearms as the DNC has, he has not threatened to reverse the precedent set by legalizing same-sex marriage across the country, he has not actively attempted to suppress the state-based movement to effect the gradual legalization of marijuana, he has not threatened to reform the Electoral College to strengthen a particular segment of the population and a particular political party, and he has not taken any proactie steps towards establishing himself as a permanent or absolute executive. He's said stupid things and may have violated laws regarding oppostion research. The NRA has supported him become he's more accommodating on the issue they care about and because every DNC alternative is more draconian on firearms than him.

[Fahran]

Listen. I believe in the 2nd amendment. I don't want to ban guns. However, the NRA should not be receiving any support by gun owners.
They knowingly let Russians trying to influence the 2016 election into the political circle of republicans, and one of them is in prison. They're also accused of tax fraud.
There are far better gun advocacy groups, and the NRA needs to die.

I want a more radical organization to come to prominence personally. No compromises with gun-grabbers at all.

[Crymmune]

I want a more radical organization to come to prominence personally. No compromises with gun-grabbers at all.

That's fine, it just needs to be one that doesn't commit crimes of their own, collude with foreign governments, and help influence elections.

[Fahran]

I want a more radical organization to come to prominence personally. No compromises with gun-grabbers at all.

That's fine, it just needs to be one that doesn't commit crimes of their own, collude with foreign governments, and help influence elections.

The entire objective of these sorts of NGO's is to influence elections. I want the gun lobby to have a discernible impact on policy so long as the impact dismantles any and all efforts to implement unproven regulations that amount to security theater. Supporting most gun control is on par with supporting the TSA. If the NRA or GOA prevents bad policy and can't be linked definitively to crimes, they have my unfettered support.

[Rojava Free State]

That's kind of how society works. There's rules. If it has democratic support, it isn't autocratic unless it breaches some sort of human right and only gun nuts think that guns are a human right.

the right to self-defense should be a universal human right. if you think trump is wannabe autocrat then why in god's name would you want people to surrender their guns to him?

I'm honestly shocked trump hasn't gone full gun control yet. I guess he's not smart enough to devise a law that only leaves his supporters armed, so he just flipped a coin and said "no gun control"

[Proctopeo]

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/autocratic
I said it was autocratic, and referenced the USSR as well. You can't deny that forcibly preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms, seizing firearms, limiting the ability to purchase firearms, etc. is autocratic can you?

au·to·crat·ic (ô′tə-krăt′ĭk)
adj.
1. Relating to or being an autocrat.
2. Tending to impose one's will on others in an insistent or arrogant manner; domineering. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

That's kind of how society works. There's rules. If it has democratic support, it isn't autocratic unless it breaches some sort of human right and only gun nuts think that guns are a human right.

Your continued mischaracterization of those who see weapon ownership as a right as """"gun nuts"""" has been noted.

Do they? As far as I can tell, even the stronger gun control supporters in the US are pretty lax by international standards. They also haven't supported an actual wannabe autocrat like Trump. For all the NRA's talk about freedom, the only freedom their supporters seem to care about is guns.

What freedoms has Trump taken away from American citizens that were present in 2005? I'm a touch wary of these assertions that the United States has fallen to autocracy or dictatorship. We have a domineering leader who was democratically elected. He has not threatened to pack the courts as the DNC has suggested, he has not threatened to coerce citizens into selling their firearms as the DNC has, he has not threatened to reverse the precedent set by legalizing same-sex marriage across the country, he has not actively attempted to suppress the state-based movement to effect the gradual legalization of marijuana, he has not threatened to reform the Electoral College to strengthen a particular segment of the population and a particular political party, and he has not taken any proactie steps towards establishing himself as a permanent or absolute executive. He's said stupid things and may have violated laws regarding oppostion research. The NRA has supported him become he's more accommodating on the issue they care about and because every DNC alternative is more draconian on firearms than him.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Do they? As far as I can tell, even the stronger gun control supporters in the US are pretty lax by international standards. They also haven't supported an actual wannabe autocrat like Trump. For all the NRA's talk about freedom, the only freedom their supporters seem to care about is guns.

What freedoms has Trump taken away from American citizens that were present in 2005? I'm a touch wary of these assertions that the United States has fallen to autocracy or dictatorship. We have a domineering leader who was democratically elected. He has not threatened to pack the courts as the DNC has suggested, he has not threatened to coerce citizens into selling their firearms as the DNC has, he has not threatened to reverse the precedent set by legalizing same-sex marriage across the country, he has not actively attempted to suppress the state-based movement to effect the gradual legalization of marijuana, he has not threatened to reform the Electoral College to strengthen a particular segment of the population and a particular political party, and he has not taken any proactie steps towards establishing himself as a permanent or absolute executive. He's said stupid things and may have violated laws regarding oppostion research. The NRA has supported him become he's more accommodating on the issue they care about and because every DNC alternative is more draconian on firearms than him.

Fucking well said.

[Grand Britannia]

Do they? As far as I can tell, even the stronger gun control supporters in the US are pretty lax by international standards. They also haven't supported an actual wannabe autocrat like Trump. For all the NRA's talk about freedom, the only freedom their supporters seem to care about is guns.

What freedoms has Trump taken away from American citizens that were present in 2005? I'm a touch wary of these assertions that the United States has fallen to autocracy or dictatorship. We have a domineering leader who was democratically elected. He has not threatened to pack the courts as the DNC has suggested, he has not threatened to coerce citizens into selling their firearms as the DNC has, he has not threatened to reverse the precedent set by legalizing same-sex marriage across the country, he has not actively attempted to suppress the state-based movement to effect the gradual legalization of marijuana, he has not threatened to reform the Electoral College to strengthen a particular segment of the population and a particular political party, and he has not taken any proactie steps towards establishing himself as a permanent or absolute executive. He's said stupid things and may have violated laws regarding oppostion research. The NRA has supported him become he's more accommodating on the issue they care about and because every DNC alternative is more draconian on firearms than him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDOrc8FmDy4

[Great Minarchistan]

It depends on the policies of the leader, honestly.
But, one that doesn't restrict firearm ownership is likely to fall to either his military or his people regardless of if a small minority are fine with him just because he doesn't do so.


IIRC he has come out in support of gun control, he just has refused to act. Likely because he knows his continued political career requires the support of gun owners.


And on the flip side, the more extreme gun control proponents would certainly support most anyone as long as they keep the children safe from the AR-15s, which I hear is named for how many kids it can kill in a second. /s on that last part, but people act like it's a fucking pocket nuke

Do they? As far as I can tell, even the stronger gun control supporters in the US are pretty lax by international standards. They also haven't supported an actual wannabe autocrat like Trump. For all the NRA's talk about freedom, the only freedom their supporters seem to care about is guns.

what does autocracy means to you, young boy