Wisconsin shooting leaves five dead

[The Lone Alliance]

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Because most of them believe that guns are the canary in the coal mine. They don't believe that the government would seriously go after economic, political, or social freedoms without first taking away the guns that could threaten that attempt.

Of course as the patriot act and a bunch of other cases of incrementalism that's not necessarily true but that is the commonly held belief that the full power grab will not happen until guns have been taken care of.

[The Two Jerseys]

I mean, have you ever considered that the government would ALSO have trucks? Meaning that the people would lack guns, but have trucks. They could certainly then use those trucks to fight the government. However the government would have both trucks AND guns.

Not to mention that it's only slightly less than half of the people in US that have access to guns. 30% Personally own a gun themselves, and 43% live in a household with a gun. Keep in mind that while guns are not distributed to EVERYONE, the US civilian population has more small arms than the Russian and Chinese military's combined.

So we're not talking about 'A small number of guns in the hands of some paranoid preppers.' we're talking about enough guns to arm the entire civilian populace of the USA in an untracked, decentralized network that at the very least, almost half of the USA has immediate access to, and if it came down to it, it wouldn't take the other half that long to avail themselves of it.

They're less 'inconsistent' and more 'you literally don't understand what you're talking about.'

Guns are tools. Trucks are tools. That they can both be used to murder lots of people doesn't mean they shouldn't be used.

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Off the top of my head I can think of two uses for guns that don't involve destruction at all.

[The Black Forrest]

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Off the top of my head I can think of two uses for guns that don't involve destruction at all.

Hammer and a paper weight?

[The Two Jerseys]

Off the top of my head I can think of two uses for guns that don't involve destruction at all.

Hammer and a paper weight?

Stuff that actually involves shooting them.

[Satuga]

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

The reason we view the right to bear arms so important, is it protects the other rights. If we have no way to stand up for ourselves should a dictatorship or what not rise, we would have no way of stopping them from aboloshing the other rights. The 2nd amendment effectively protects the other amendments.

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean, have you ever considered that the government would ALSO have trucks? Meaning that the people would lack guns, but have trucks. They could certainly then use those trucks to fight the government. However the government would have both trucks AND guns.

Not to mention that it's only slightly less than half of the people in US that have access to guns. 30% Personally own a gun themselves, and 43% live in a household with a gun. Keep in mind that while guns are not distributed to EVERYONE, the US civilian population has more small arms than the Russian and Chinese military's combined.

So we're not talking about 'A small number of guns in the hands of some paranoid preppers.' we're talking about enough guns to arm the entire civilian populace of the USA in an untracked, decentralized network that at the very least, almost half of the USA has immediate access to, and if it came down to it, it wouldn't take the other half that long to avail themselves of it.

They're less 'inconsistent' and more 'you literally don't understand what you're talking about.'

Guns are tools. Trucks are tools. That they can both be used to murder lots of people doesn't mean they shouldn't be used.

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Hunting, entertainment, and passive deterrence. Just off the top of my head.

[Krasny-Volny]

If (and I emphasize on the IF) it was a layoff, shooting at people is quite the overreaction.

It is. Some people just hit rock bottom and think only revenge is all that is left. The environment is built on it. I have read studies where if you are over 45 and loose a full time gig; you are less then likely to replace it. Though this is only speculations for this incident.

Seems to me like a possible mirror of the Standard Gravure shooting.

Middle aged worker is laid off and out of options, takes it out on his coworkers before committing suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting

Incidentally I was just reading an old paper from ‘89 which mentioned this shooting, and the coverage of this recent incident reads eerily similar.

[Krasny-Volny]

I mean, have you ever considered that the government would ALSO have trucks? Meaning that the people would lack guns, but have trucks. They could certainly then use those trucks to fight the government. However the government would have both trucks AND guns.

Not to mention that it's only slightly less than half of the people in US that have access to guns. 30% Personally own a gun themselves, and 43% live in a household with a gun. Keep in mind that while guns are not distributed to EVERYONE, the US civilian population has more small arms than the Russian and Chinese military's combined.

So we're not talking about 'A small number of guns in the hands of some paranoid preppers.' we're talking about enough guns to arm the entire civilian populace of the USA in an untracked, decentralized network that at the very least, almost half of the USA has immediate access to, and if it came down to it, it wouldn't take the other half that long to avail themselves of it.

They're less 'inconsistent' and more 'you literally don't understand what you're talking about.'

Guns are tools. Trucks are tools. That they can both be used to murder lots of people doesn't mean they shouldn't be used.

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Come on. Most American gun owners of the constitutional patriot variety would take up arms against a swastika just as readily as a hammer and sickle.

The minute said far right dictatorship starts cracking down on political freedoms and starts imposing more and more regulations on everything, the American libertarian streak starts coming out.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Because most of them believe that guns are the canary in the coal mine. They don't believe that the government would seriously go after economic, political, or social freedoms without first taking away the guns that could threaten that attempt.

Of course as the patriot act and a bunch of other cases of incrementalism that's not necessarily true but that is the commonly held belief that the full power grab will not happen until guns have been taken care of.

Pretty much, yeah.

Any overt and extreme totaltarianism.. like... shooting up a polling-booth and stealing ballots from a town full of army-vets... usually ends badly for the folks trying to literally steal an election... Especially when said vets are occupying the high ground and roll-up with a tank and a bucket of dynamite.

But yeah, incremental stuff is kinda still a problem that y'all gotta hope the courts act like an immune-system against stupid lawmakers... y'know... so Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo doesn't end up being a really ultra crappy direct-to-Blu-Ray sequel that actually hits the shelves.

Besides, the worst shootings in Wisconsin so far was when shooting up a church [handgun], a sikh temple [handgun], a hunting incident involving an SKS, and when an off-duty Crandon Sheriff's deputy stormed a duplex and shot all residents dead before shooting himself (as for his aim... he had to shoot himself 3 times in the head, with a handgun).

Clearly we must ban .30 caliber rifles and fully semi-pump-bolt actions with detachable sights.

Also:

I'm hoping the only reason Wisconsin doesn't have a constitutional carry law is because it's already in the State's constitution and therefore making a law of a law would seem a tad redundant. [Article 1 (Section 25)]

The Wisconsin Supreme court is also stoutly constitutionalist.

To the point even the Milwaukee sheriff encourages EDC.

People forget that until 1870, Wisconsin was the wild-west.
-Blowing stumps into the sky with a quart-stick of dynamite used to be commonplace until 1925.
-As was the occassional fully-automatic Colt M1911.

[Tobleste]

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Because most of them believe that guns are the canary in the coal mine. They don't believe that the government would seriously go after economic, political, or social freedoms without first taking away the guns that could threaten that attempt.

Of course as the patriot act and a bunch of other cases of incrementalism that's not necessarily true but that is the commonly held belief that the full power grab will not happen until guns have been taken care of.

That's what I dont get. The same party that defends their gun rights undermines their economic, political and social freedoms. They attack unions, undermine support for the poor, favour employers over workers, restrict voting, undermine democracy and the rule of law, restrict the rights of women, minorities and LGBT people.

I think if the US had a fascist party that was fiercely pro gun, the likes of the NRA would be fine with it.

[Tobleste]

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

Come on. Most American gun owners of the constitutional patriot variety would take up arms against a swastika just as readily as a hammer and sickle.

The minute said far right dictatorship starts cracking down on political freedoms and starts imposing more and more regulations on everything, the American libertarian streak starts coming out.

You mean the way Republicans restrict voting rights, gerrymander and encourage the influence of the wealthy in elections?

I dont see any reason to think most defenders of lax gun laws give a damn about anything else. Everytime a school is shot up, their first instinct is to defend their guns. They literally care more about guns than peoples lives. What evidence is there that they would care about political freedoms?

[Tobleste]

The issue is that trucks have uses apart from destruction. Guns don't. The argument that guns are needed to bring down the government is always a pretty poor one. Frankly, if a dictatorship occurred in the US, it would be supported by a large segment of the population so you're not going to arm everyone.

Frankly, Americans who defend its gun culture seem to view their guns as more important than any other type of freedom (economic, political, social) so if there was a far right dictatorship, I don't think anyone seriously believes you guys wouldn't defend it.

The reason we view the right to bear arms so important, is it protects the other rights. If we have no way to stand up for ourselves should a dictatorship or what not rise, we would have no way of stopping them from aboloshing the other rights. The 2nd amendment effectively protects the other amendments.

Other democracies have as much if not more political freedom than Americans. Those militias haven't done much for American freedom since the revolution. And given that the most armed Americans also seem to be the most authoritarian when it comes to other rights so I see them more as a threat to Americans rights.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Because most of them believe that guns are the canary in the coal mine. They don't believe that the government would seriously go after economic, political, or social freedoms without first taking away the guns that could threaten that attempt.

Of course as the patriot act and a bunch of other cases of incrementalism that's not necessarily true but that is the commonly held belief that the full power grab will not happen until guns have been taken care of.

That's what I dont get. The same party that defends their gun rights undermines their economic, political and social freedoms. They attack unions, undermine support for the poor, favour employers over workers, restrict voting, undermine democracy and the rule of law, restrict the rights of women, minorities and LGBT people.

I think if the US had a fascist party that was fiercely pro gun, the likes of the NRA would be fine with it.

Gonna need some so-yo-sauce with that big ball 'o rice.

Also, gun right advocacy isn't a party-line thing, so gonna need those sauces to mention the GOA/NRA's specific stance on those issues, and that's the supposedly low-hanging fruit compared to going after CMP with those claims.

Also gonna broadly counter in the blind that rights to be armed are as much political rights as freedom of assembly... whilst armed.
-Is almost as though a tense standoff between these two views happened at the inception of the country's government at some lonesome bridge in New York, I wonder which side won after the shot heard 'round the world ended.

To go around confiscating guns would ironicly be viewed as tyranical fascism.

You mean the way Republicans restrict voting rights, gerrymander and encourage the influence of the wealthy in elections?

Yes. And they have. Although the KKK is probably not the best example of armed civvies defying Republicans.

Better example would be the use of force to settle a polling/Vote-counting dispute in Athens, Tennessee after a sheriff's deputy gone shot up a polling-place and run 'oft with a truckload of ballot-boxes.

Those militias haven't done much for American freedom since the revolution

You're kinda forgetting what teh "Volunteer" part meant when refering to units like the 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, AKA: The Black Hat/Iron Brigades.

Also the defense of US ordnance works, the coastwatchers, and the Civil Air Patrol during wartime
-Border patrol, disaster-relief (floods), firefighting (wildfires) and Search and Rescue being their bread and butter these days. Usually using obsolete resserve miltary vehicles.

[Kernen]

What with the impending doom of the corona plague, I'd really rather have a weapon than not.

Carrying one around the yard might give my neighbor pause next time he eyes up my backup generator's backup generator. Or the spare dried goods he saw me unloading.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

What with the impending doom of the corona plague, I'd really rather have a weapon than not.

Carrying one around the yard might give my neighbor pause next time he eyes up my backup generator's backup generator. Or the spare dried goods he saw me unloading.

Or provide peace of mind when he's unpacking his own backup generator and needs someone to keep an eye on it while he goes out to till the field.

Which is kinda exactly what happened one time someone dialed 911 while watching 2 guys and a truck starting to ransack their nieghbor's place while loading up his shotgun.
[Actual audio]

[Kernen]

What with the impending doom of the corona plague, I'd really rather have a weapon than not.

Carrying one around the yard might give my neighbor pause next time he eyes up my backup generator's backup generator. Or the spare dried goods he saw me unloading.

Or provide peace of mind when he's unpacking his own backup generator and needs someone to keep an eye on it while he goes out to till the field.

Which is kinda exactly what happened one time someone dialed 911 while watching 2 guys and a truck starting to ransack their nieghbor's place while loading up his shotgun.
[Actual audio]

My neighbor does not own one generator, let alone two. He wouldn't buy one, probably because it would cut down on whats liquid for getting more obnoxious motorcycles and light beer. If he wants a generator, he can get his own.

[Tobleste]

That's what I dont get. The same party that defends their gun rights undermines their economic, political and social freedoms. They attack unions, undermine support for the poor, favour employers over workers, restrict voting, undermine democracy and the rule of law, restrict the rights of women, minorities and LGBT people.

I think if the US had a fascist party that was fiercely pro gun, the likes of the NRA would be fine with it.

Gonna need some so-yo-sauce with that big ball 'o rice.

Also, gun right advocacy isn't a party-line thing, so gonna need those sauces to mention the GOA/NRA's specific stance on those issues, and that's the supposedly low-hanging fruit compared to going after CMP with those claims.

Also gonna broadly counter in the blind that rights to be armed are as much political rights as freedom of assembly... whilst armed.
-Is almost as though a tense standoff between these two views happened at the inception of the country's government at some lonesome bridge in New York, I wonder which side won after the shot heard 'round the world ended.

To go around confiscating guns would ironicly be viewed as tyranical fascism.

You mean the way Republicans restrict voting rights, gerrymander and encourage the influence of the wealthy in elections?

Yes. And they have. Although the KKK is probably not the best example of armed civvies defying Republicans.

Better example would be the use of force to settle a polling/Vote-counting dispute in Athens, Tennessee after a sheriff's deputy gone shot up a polling-place and run 'oft with a truckload of ballot-boxes.

Those militias haven't done much for American freedom since the revolution

You're kinda forgetting what teh "Volunteer" part meant when refering to units like the 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, AKA: The Black Hat/Iron Brigades.

Also the defense of US ordnance works, the coastwatchers, and the Civil Air Patrol during wartime
-Border patrol, disaster-relief (floods), firefighting (wildfires) and Search and Rescue being their bread and butter these days. Usually using obsolete resserve miltary vehicles.

I dont really see how this is a response to most of what I said. I explained how the GOP restricts rights in almost every other area than guns and the NRA is happy to effectively function as a wing of the GOP in return. Do you have any evidence that gun rights advocates actually care about other rights nearly as much as gun rights? If you do, try and make it coherent.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Gonna need some so-yo-sauce with that big ball 'o rice.

Also, gun right advocacy isn't a party-line thing, so gonna need those sauces to mention the GOA/NRA's specific stance on those issues, and that's the supposedly low-hanging fruit compared to going after CMP with those claims.

Also gonna broadly counter in the blind that rights to be armed are as much political rights as freedom of assembly... whilst armed.
-Is almost as though a tense standoff between these two views happened at the inception of the country's government at some lonesome bridge in New York, I wonder which side won after the shot heard 'round the world ended.

To go around confiscating guns would ironicly be viewed as tyranical fascism.

Yes. And they have. Although the KKK is probably not the best example of armed civvies defying Republicans.

Better example would be the use of force to settle a polling/Vote-counting dispute in Athens, Tennessee after a sheriff's deputy gone shot up a polling-place and run 'oft with a truckload of ballot-boxes.


You're kinda forgetting what teh "Volunteer" part meant when refering to units like the 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, AKA: The Black Hat/Iron Brigades.

Also the defense of US ordnance works, the coastwatchers, and the Civil Air Patrol during wartime
-Border patrol, disaster-relief (floods), firefighting (wildfires) and Search and Rescue being their bread and butter these days. Usually using obsolete resserve miltary vehicles.

I dont really see how this is a response to most of what I said. I explained how the GOP restricts rights in almost every other area than guns and the NRA is happy to effectively function as a wing of the GOP in return. Do you have any evidence that gun rights advocates actually care about other rights nearly as much as gun rights? If you do, try and make it coherent.

Y'mean aside from education outreach/gun-safety programs for children; training and certification courses for Concealed carry and concealed carry instructors, plus special programs for training single mothers in self defense (not necessarily just firearms), community outreach programs, hunter-education programs, wildland/environmental management, and all the other stuff they do?
--Although the NRA is nominally a single-issue administration, its members tend to hold a libertarian or Tea Party view. So although it is true they'd probably support the DNC the very second it drops trying to whittle away the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, claiming they are complicit to any other policies through omission of an official stance is a bit disingenuous.

Your previous post --the one I was responding to-- made it sound like you were claiming the NRA and its membership was taking an active brown-shirt role in voter suppresion and armed anti-racial pogoms. To which I'd like to see sources.

[Telconi]

Gonna need some so-yo-sauce with that big ball 'o rice.

Also, gun right advocacy isn't a party-line thing, so gonna need those sauces to mention the GOA/NRA's specific stance on those issues, and that's the supposedly low-hanging fruit compared to going after CMP with those claims.

Also gonna broadly counter in the blind that rights to be armed are as much political rights as freedom of assembly... whilst armed.
-Is almost as though a tense standoff between these two views happened at the inception of the country's government at some lonesome bridge in New York, I wonder which side won after the shot heard 'round the world ended.

To go around confiscating guns would ironicly be viewed as tyranical fascism.

Yes. And they have. Although the KKK is probably not the best example of armed civvies defying Republicans.

Better example would be the use of force to settle a polling/Vote-counting dispute in Athens, Tennessee after a sheriff's deputy gone shot up a polling-place and run 'oft with a truckload of ballot-boxes.


You're kinda forgetting what teh "Volunteer" part meant when refering to units like the 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, AKA: The Black Hat/Iron Brigades.

Also the defense of US ordnance works, the coastwatchers, and the Civil Air Patrol during wartime
-Border patrol, disaster-relief (floods), firefighting (wildfires) and Search and Rescue being their bread and butter these days. Usually using obsolete resserve miltary vehicles.

I dont really see how this is a response to most of what I said. I explained how the GOP restricts rights in almost every other area than guns and the NRA is happy to effectively function as a wing of the GOP in return. Do you have any evidence that gun rights advocates actually care about other rights nearly as much as gun rights? If you do, try and make it coherent.

Your complaint is that a dedicated gun rights organization doesn't spend it's time and money to promote unrelated political goals?

[The Emerald Legion]

Because most of them believe that guns are the canary in the coal mine. They don't believe that the government would seriously go after economic, political, or social freedoms without first taking away the guns that could threaten that attempt.

Of course as the patriot act and a bunch of other cases of incrementalism that's not necessarily true but that is the commonly held belief that the full power grab will not happen until guns have been taken care of.

That's what I dont get. The same party that defends their gun rights undermines their economic, political and social freedoms. They attack unions, undermine support for the poor, favour employers over workers, restrict voting, undermine democracy and the rule of law, restrict the rights of women, minorities and LGBT people.

I think if the US had a fascist party that was fiercely pro gun, the likes of the NRA would be fine with it.

So. You're European, I think anyway, so you probably aren't aware of this but Unions in America suck. You're used to Unions that do things to help workers. Meanwhile in America the Democrats make it mandatory to join Unions. While Unions then charge workers fees, and kick back a portion of those fees to Democrats. It's shady as fuck.

That's what the Republican 'right to work' fight is about. If Unions didn't constantly act like asshats, nobody would be gunning for them. But they do, so they have people who hate them.

And by 'undermine support for the poor' you mean oppose another drain on the taxpayers to finance those who literally don't pay taxes. it's just wealth redistribution. It doesn't work.

And, because the rest is all fairly melded together. Yes. The rule of law is anti-freedom. Democracy must have limits and so must the law. That's the very fucking problem. The Democrats see no limit to how powerful and intrusive the law can be, which is blatant nonsense. An unfortunate outgrowth of the Faustian New Deal.

So no. The Republicans aren't attacking anyones rights. It's not your right to have the government show up and threaten me into doing something for you.

The reason we view the right to bear arms so important, is it protects the other rights. If we have no way to stand up for ourselves should a dictatorship or what not rise, we would have no way of stopping them from aboloshing the other rights. The 2nd amendment effectively protects the other amendments.

Other democracies have as much if not more political freedom than Americans. Those militias haven't done much for American freedom since the revolution. And given that the most armed Americans also seem to be the most authoritarian when it comes to other rights so I see them more as a threat to Americans rights.

This is often claimed but entirely incorrect. Hell. Most countries can't even get the basics right.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Other democracies have as much if not more political freedom than Americans. Those militias haven't done much for American freedom since the revolution. And given that the most armed Americans also seem to be the most authoritarian when it comes to other rights so I see them more as a threat to Americans rights.

This is often claimed but entirely incorrect. Hell. Most countries can't even get the basics right.

The Brexit-speech to the EU would seem a fitting example of how much of a sham some self-proclaimed democracies are when a very few people can send a vote back to referendum until they get teh resaults they wanted in the first place, essentialy punishing taxpayers for wrongthink by forcing them to pay for more polls when the only time your choice matters to them is when you agree with your glorious leaders.

Or taking the votes for referendum and having those who voted against your policies permenently dealt with to make room for a recall-vote without any more of their pesky interference, as was the case in Venezuala.