NationStates

Major-Tom wrote:I mean, conservatives in the US go around labeling every small, broad left-wing group as terroristic, so if SF wants to label an organization that facilitates and is complicit in large-scale gun violence as a dangerous group, so be it.

It's more intellectually honest then saying some asinine, truly moronic shit like "SPLC are terrorists" or my personal favorite "ANTIFA = Fascists!"

I mean, SPLC has said some shady dishonest shit as of late, but I haven't heard anyone say the SPLC are terrorists, and a google search didn't turn it up either.

Ifreann wrote:Pretty funny.

Would you think it funny if say Knoxville deflated Planned Parenthood and the ACLU for disagreeing with them politically?

Major-Tom wrote:I mean, conservatives in the US go around labeling every small, broad left-wing group as terroristic, so if SF wants to label an organization that facilitates and is complicit in large-scale gun violence as a dangerous group, so be it.

It's more intellectually honest then saying some asinine, truly moronic shit like "SPLC are terrorists" or my personal favorite "ANTIFA = Fascists!"

What conservative local government as officially declared the SPLC terrorists?
Until that actually happens, false equivalency. This is not a few internet trolls, this is the government of a city. Big difference.

Novus America wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Pretty funny.

Would you think it funny if say Knoxville deflated Planned Parenthood and the ACLU for disagreeing with them politically?

This is true. It's only funny because it's his opposition, if something similar were to happen on an issue he cared about, him, and others like him (or her w/e) would be up in arms.

Gagium wrote::blink:

Mexican Liberation wrote:whoever the hell "they" is supposed to mean.

Probably the people designating them a terrorist group for literally advocating for constitutional rights...

I don't recall literally driving your members to paranoia about an upcoming civil war during every gun-related discussion as part of being a constitutional advocate

Genivaria wrote:

Medwind wrote:

It may not be a "far left" to *foreigners* but by *US* standards their definitely is. EVERY country has a "far left" it doesn't mean that they all agree on the same things, or are a united ideology, they are just those leftists who are on the far end of the spectrum BY THAT COUNTRIES STANDARDS. That's what I mean when I speak of "the far left in the US." I don't know why this is so confusing.

Yes but in America 'far left' basically means "guys maybe people shouldn't go bankrupt from not having health insurance."

Or in this case partisan lunatics wanting to crush freedom of speech and suppress the political opposition via government actions.
The fact that some on the right do this as well (though no conservative local government has done something this stupid) does not make it better.

This is pretty funny, ngl

Always amazed about the fight over guns in the US....maybe im just to Canadian as an American once told me...but as right wing conservative, I have pretty restrictive view guns, as of none at all....

Mexican Liberation wrote:

Gagium wrote::blink:
Probably the people designating them a terrorist group for literally advocating for constitutional rights...

I don't recall literally driving your members to paranoia about an upcoming civil during every gun-related discussion as part of being a constitutional advocate

Well when the political opposition is literally declaring you terrorists via governmental action, maybe it is not so unreasonable a fear...

Galloism wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:I mean, conservatives in the US go around labeling every small, broad left-wing group as terroristic, so if SF wants to label an organization that facilitates and is complicit in large-scale gun violence as a dangerous group, so be it.

It's more intellectually honest then saying some asinine, truly moronic shit like "SPLC are terrorists" or my personal favorite "ANTIFA = Fascists!"

I mean, SPLC has said some shady dishonest shit as of late, but I haven't heard anyone say the SPLC are terrorists, and a google search didn't turn it up either.

I'm speaking anecdotally, more so regarding stuff I've heard. Although if I recall, there was an attempt to designate ANTIFA as a terroristic organization.

Either way - I'd never personally call the NRA a terrorist group, largely because most of their members are law abiding, decent people, but I despise the organizational leadership as a whole. So, at the very least, this whole thing is humoring me mildly.

Mexican Liberation wrote:

Gagium wrote::blink:
Probably the people designating them a terrorist group for literally advocating for constitutional rights...

I don't recall literally driving your members to paranoia about an upcoming civil war during every gun-related discussion as part of being a constitutional advocate

It’s a good thing that’s not what they do then

Novus America wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:I mean, conservatives in the US go around labeling every small, broad left-wing group as terroristic, so if SF wants to label an organization that facilitates and is complicit in large-scale gun violence as a dangerous group, so be it.

It's more intellectually honest then saying some asinine, truly moronic shit like "SPLC are terrorists" or my personal favorite "ANTIFA = Fascists!"

What conservative local government as officially declared the SPLC terrorists?
Until that actually happens, false equivalency. This is not a few internet trolls, this is the government of a city. Big difference.

As I said to Gallo, I'm aware. This whole thing is just sorta funny - SF just being over-reactive against an organization I don't particularly appreciate.

Nantu wrote:Always amazed about the fight over guns in the US....maybe im just to Canadian as an American once told me...but as right wing conservative, I have pretty restrictive view guns, as of none at all....

I mean
You guys let someone kill, behead, and then eat a guy on a bus while police watched idly for 4 hours...and then eventually released him with full rights and a record seal on his own recognizance

And your prosecution threw the book at a guy who fired 4 warning shots at a berm safely to defend his life from people with literal pitchforks and torches who yelled on recorded CCTV "come out so we can kill you" after having set his house on fire

Self defense is not a particularly big virtue there.

Major-Tom wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean, SPLC has said some shady dishonest shit as of late, but I haven't heard anyone say the SPLC are terrorists, and a google search didn't turn it up either.

I'm speaking anecdotally, more so regarding stuff I've heard. Although if I recall, there was an attempt to designate ANTIFA as a terroristic organization.

Either way - I'd never personally call the NRA a terrorist group, largely because most of their members are law abiding, decent people, but I despise the organizational leadership as a whole. So, at the very least, this whole thing is humoring me mildly.

Yes, it died in the senate. Yes that was stupid too.

Major-Tom wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean, SPLC has said some shady dishonest shit as of late, but I haven't heard anyone say the SPLC are terrorists, and a google search didn't turn it up either.

I'm speaking anecdotally, more so regarding stuff I've heard. Although if I recall, there was an attempt to designate ANTIFA as a terroristic organization.

Either way - I'd never personally call the NRA a terrorist group, largely because most of their members are law abiding, decent people, but I despise the organizational leadership as a whole. So, at the very least, this whole thing is humoring me mildly.

You are comparing a few trolls on the internet with the government of a major city.
This is extreme false equivalency.

Moreover you admit it is wrong, and surely you agree this is not good for civil discourse.
This is literally “political groups that support the other party are literal terrorists” and not again by just a few internet trolls.

Internet trolls running a city is not a good idea.

The definition of terrorist is not "having the audacity to oppose gun restrictions."

Galloism wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
I'm speaking anecdotally, more so regarding stuff I've heard. Although if I recall, there was an attempt to designate ANTIFA as a terroristic organization.

Either way - I'd never personally call the NRA a terrorist group, largely because most of their members are law abiding, decent people, but I despise the organizational leadership as a whole. So, at the very least, this whole thing is humoring me mildly.

Yes, it died in the senate. Yes that was stupid too.

So long as SF doesn't try to do anything asinine, like, say, ban the NRA from operating within city limits, then I'm going to shelve this as an example of SF just being SF.

Conservative New America wrote:

Nantu wrote:Always amazed about the fight over guns in the US....maybe im just to Canadian as an American once told me...but as right wing conservative, I have pretty restrictive view guns, as of none at all....

I mean
You guys let someone kill, behead, and then eat a guy on a bus while police watched idly for 4 hours...and then eventually released him with full rights and a record seal on his own recognizance

And your prosecution threw the book at a guy who fired 4 warning shots at a berm safely to defend his life from people with literal pitchforks and torches who yelled on recorded CCTV "come out so we can kill you" after having set his house on fire

Self defense is not a particularly big virtue there.

Yeah, I thank God that I don't live in a country like that tbqh. At least in most parts of the US you can still defend yourself properly, without risking your freedom.

Major-Tom wrote:

Novus America wrote:
What conservative local government as officially declared the SPLC terrorists?
Until that actually happens, false equivalency. This is not a few internet trolls, this is the government of a city. Big difference.

As I said to Gallo, I'm aware. This whole thing is just sorta funny - SF just being over-reactive against an organization I don't particularly appreciate.

Surely you agree this is not good for political discourse, and that city governments should not be declaring legitimate lawful groups terrorists for daring to disagree with said city government.

Novus America wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
I'm speaking anecdotally, more so regarding stuff I've heard. Although if I recall, there was an attempt to designate ANTIFA as a terroristic organization.

Either way - I'd never personally call the NRA a terrorist group, largely because most of their members are law abiding, decent people, but I despise the organizational leadership as a whole. So, at the very least, this whole thing is humoring me mildly.

You are comparing a few trolls on the internet with the government of a major city.
This is extreme false equivalency.

Moreover you admit it is wrong, and surely you agree this is not good for civil discourse.
This is literally “political groups that support the other party are literal terrorists” and not again by just a few internet trolls.

Internet trolls running a city is not a good idea.

I think we're on a similar wavelength, regardless of what differing opinions we may have of the NRA and our general immediate reaction to this.

My equivalency wasn't great, mine almost never are unless I'm legitimately trying to drive home an honest to god point. As for civil discourse and whether or not SF's city council was in the right here, well, San Francisco is a bubble. I see this just pissing off a good chunk of people who live outside of San Fran in the first place, all the while making the aforementioned City Council look a little daft.

Anyways, I'll admit I was in the wrong to use such a ham-fisted equivalency, definitely a slip up on my end.

Major-Tom wrote:

Galloism wrote:Yes, it died in the senate. Yes that was stupid too.

So long as SF doesn't try to do anything asinine, like, say, ban the NRA from operating within city limits, then I'm going to shelve this as an example of SF just being SF.

Well the thing is that a lot of left wing cities look to SF as some kind of gold standard (lol) for which to aim for. This could just be the beginning of a domino chain of oppression of political opponents.

Medwind wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
So long as SF doesn't try to do anything asinine, like, say, ban the NRA from operating within city limits, then I'm going to shelve this as an example of SF just being SF.

Well the thing is that a lot of left wing cities look to SF as some kind of gold standard (lol) for which to aim for. This could just be the beginning of a domino chain of oppression of political opponents.

It won't. In an age of intense political polarization, local governments and even the federal government will inevitably try to enact symbolic pieces of legislation in order to look "noble" or some shit. It never works, but it's what happens, but I don't foresee this starting a trend of government overreach when this is symbolic in nature.

Is this legislation stupid? Sure. Funny? For all intents and purposes, just a little. A slippery slope to authoritarianism? No.

Major-Tom wrote:

Medwind wrote:
Well the thing is that a lot of left wing cities look to SF as some kind of gold standard (lol) for which to aim for. This could just be the beginning of a domino chain of oppression of political opponents.

It won't. In an age of intense political polarization, local governments and even the federal government will inevitably try to enact symbolic pieces of legislation in order to look "noble" or some shit. It never works, but it's what happens, but I don't foresee this starting a trend of government overreach when this is symbolic in nature.

Is this legislation stupid? Sure. Funny? For all intents and purposes, just a little. A slippery slope to authoritarianism? No.

Honestly I'm all for it, people need to wear their shitty beliefs on their sleeves more often.

Novus America wrote:

Mexican Liberation wrote:
I don't recall literally driving your members to paranoia about an upcoming civil during every gun-related discussion as part of being a constitutional advocate

Well when the political opposition is literally declaring you terrorists via governmental action, maybe it is not so unreasonable a fear...

Of the several right-wing killings orchestrated by people with a not too different ideology this past year or so...protecting my homeland from invaders, premeditated self-defense, no more SJW oppression...how many of these organizations, NRA included, issued a statement regarding they are not aligned with these individuals and their motives? It's not too far-fetched to assume they knew they held at least some influence in these perpetrator's ways of thinking, of course acknowledging it would be suicide, but as cliche as it sounds, silence and inaction is consent.

Gagium wrote:

Mexican Liberation wrote:
I don't recall literally driving your members to paranoia about an upcoming civil war during every gun-related discussion as part of being a constitutional advocate

It’s a good thing that’s not what they do then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH9EHEuBibY

Telconi wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
It won't. In an age of intense political polarization, local governments and even the federal government will inevitably try to enact symbolic pieces of legislation in order to look "noble" or some shit. It never works, but it's what happens, but I don't foresee this starting a trend of government overreach when this is symbolic in nature.

Is this legislation stupid? Sure. Funny? For all intents and purposes, just a little. A slippery slope to authoritarianism? No.

Honestly I'm all for it, people need to wear their shitty beliefs on their sleeves more often.

What do you mean specifically?

Btw off topic but I found this interesting since it talks about how Australia coerced and bullied it's citizens into disarming, although it's a year old:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EunhUFXXBA