American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[Arlenton]

What are his stances on gun rights and returning more power to states at the expense of the federal government?

Did you post this twice here?

I did accidently. Was on my phone.

[Galloism]

This is a bad stance and you should feel bad. Carrying a rifle neither was the escalating event not is there any evidence it was intended to escalate things.

He had a rifle because it was legal for him while a handgun isn’t.

The real escalating event is threatening to murder someone then chasing them down and trying to carry out your threat. Stop blaming the attacked and start blaming attackers.

Nope. Not buying it. But keep selling it. I'm sure you'll get lots of apologists on board.

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

[Arlenton]

This is a bad stance and you should feel bad. Carrying a rifle neither was the escalating event not is there any evidence it was intended to escalate things.

He had a rifle because it was legal for him while a handgun isn’t.

The real escalating event is threatening to murder someone then chasing them down and trying to carry out your threat. Stop blaming the attacked and start blaming attackers.

Nope. Not buying it. But keep selling it. I'm sure you'll get lots of apologists on board.

Your not buying that it's legal in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to carry a non-SBR rifle but not a handgun? I am pretty sure that is what the law says there.

[American Legionaries]

And it's in the realm of possibility that someone getting stabbed in the street would rather die than have someone intervene too. But it's sure as hell not likely.

Unlikely in the extreme. But property insurance exists. People do own things to which they are not very strongly attached.

People would generally be excused for assuming something if the alternative is "unlikely in the extreme" yes?

[Arlenton]

Yeah, by my experience property owners want arson about as much as they want to be stabbed.

I dunno, I think it's within the realm of possibility that a person would be more willing to deal with the damage to or loss of their property than to see people dead in its defence. Depends what the property is.

I'd rather see dead looters than my business burned down.

[San Lumen]

You’ve still yet to explain what is insensitive about holding a Christmas tree lighting ceremony or a winter festival.

I have explained, but you must have missed it because you were busy imagining me trying to take away your beloved dog show.

I didn’t miss it at all. Your logic does not make sense. By your standard their shouldn’t be holiday celebrations at all because there will always be someone grieving. I completely fail to see thd point here.

[American Legionaries]

Nope. Not buying it. But keep selling it. I'm sure you'll get lots of apologists on board.

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

But what if the person being attacked had opinions which differed from your own?

[Galloism]

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

But what if the person being attacked had opinions which differed from your own?

Well try very hard not to be a hypocrite, so I have no problem with that either.

[Cannot think of a name]

Nope. Not buying it. But keep selling it. I'm sure you'll get lots of apologists on board.

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

[American Legionaries]

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

He is, technically, off the hook. As he was acquitted and cannot be charged again.

[Cannot think of a name]

Nope. Not buying it. But keep selling it. I'm sure you'll get lots of apologists on board.

Your not buying that it's legal in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to carry a non-SBR rifle but not a handgun? I am pretty sure that is what the law says there.

Who the fuck said anything about 'legal'. Just because you can doesn't mean you should and if you do and you get the result you wanted in the first place just because it was 'perfectly legal' you're still a fucking piece of shit.

[Arlenton]

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

He had a right to both be there and carry the rifle, regardless of how reckless it was. Protestors, and rioters, looters, and crazy people both who may or may not have any connection to the protests, have no right to rule the street and attack someone who is doing nothing illegal.

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

He is, technically, off the hook. As he was acquitted and cannot be charged again.

bew bew bew bew it was legal bew bew bew. Say it fifteen more times, maybe that will make it okay eventually.

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

He had a right to both be there and carry the rifle, regardless of how reckless it was. Protestors, and rioters, looters, and crazy people both who may or may not have any connection to the protests, have no right to rule the street and attack someone who is doing nothing illegal.

You have a right to do a lot of shitty things, still would make you a piece of shit.

[Galloism]

You know, I’ve never looked at a person getting literally attacked in the street and thought “you know what would make this situation better? If the victim they were apparently attempting to murder was unarmed and unable to defend themselves”.

It’s a really twisted and hateful form of thinking. Can’t wrap my head around it at all.

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

Notably, police remarked that there were so many people there with guns (including rifles) he didn’t stick out at all. This was both pro BLM folks and otherwise.

He was common. Average. Ordinary in the time and place he was. Didn’t stick out. This was testified to and can be seen from footage that night.

You are inventing a place that doesn’t exist, and pretending as if he was some outlier. He wasn’t. He was very ordinary that night.

You are blaming the victim who was very ordinary in the time and place he was in that was literally chased down and attacked on camera by a person who was engaging in repeated violent behavior throughout the night and had threatened to murder him and others. A person who didn’t even fire the first shot. A person who actively fled violence. Whom witnesses referred to as pleasant and helpful, if naive. You think it’s the victim’s fault for being attacked.

Blame lies with attackers. Not the attacked. Attackers choose victims out of available ones. Victims don’t choose attackers.

Stop blaming victims.

[American Legionaries]

He is, technically, off the hook. As he was acquitted and cannot be charged again.

bew bew bew bew it was legal bew bew bew. Say it fifteen more times, maybe that will make it okay eventually.

It was okay to begin with....

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah, I know. You're outraged. Blah blah blah. I could give a shit about your state of mind. Thing is, I'm not a blithering fucking idiot who has to pretend that having the gun there wasn't an intentional act of escalation. I haven't shoved my head so far up my ass as to pretend it's an innocent act that didn't create the situation. You can hem and haw about what a dangerous unhinged wreckless person one of the three people he shot was, but funny, somehow the only person he managed to be a deadly threat to was the guy who brought a fucking rifle to a protest. You can wrap your little outrage in as much language as you want, and I know that you'll chase this thing all over the forum in your rampant pursuit of the golden mean, the 'rational centrist' as you bend over backwards to make excuses for this little shithead who brought a gun to a protest and shock and horror oh my god he eventually found a use for it but no no, he's just an innocent victim in it. I have not taken leave of my senses, I don't give a shit if the law allows people to create their situations where they have to defend themselves with deadly force. He's not off the hook. But keep at it, it's a super cool look to make the teenager who took a rifle to a protest as an innocent poo wittle victim who had no choice but to use the tool of agitation he was carrying around totally innocently. The fuck outta here with that.

Notably, police remarked that there were so many people there with guns

Oh good, the organization that was being protested for their excessive use of violence was okay with it. Well. That makes aaaaaaalllllllll the difference.

[Arlenton]

Your not buying that it's legal in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to carry a non-SBR rifle but not a handgun? I am pretty sure that is what the law says there.

Who the fuck said anything about 'legal'. Just because you can doesn't mean you should and if you do and you get the result you wanted in the first place just because it was 'perfectly legal' you're still a fucking piece of shit.

What thing wrong did he do? There's nothing wrong with carrying a rifle, regardless of whether or not there are protests. There's nothing wrong with being present in public with a rifle, regardless of whether or not there are protests. There's nothing wrong with using deadly force to protect yourself from someone chasing you down, while saying they intend to kill you, and grabbing your weapon, or from someone bashing you with a skateboard, or from someone putting a gun to your head. Protesters as well as related and unrelated individuals don't rule public areas.

[Galloism]

Notably, police remarked that there were so many people there with guns

Oh good, the organization that was being protested for their excessive use of violence was okay with it. Well. That makes aaaaaaalllllllll the difference.

You could read all of it, as I also referenced video which shows the same.

Stop blaming victims for getting attacked.

[Ifreann]

Unlikely in the extreme. But property insurance exists. People do own things to which they are not very strongly attached.

People would generally be excused for assuming something if the alternative is "unlikely in the extreme" yes?

That was in reference to someone getting stabbed preferring to die than to be defended. In contrast, it's much less unlikely that someone would rather file an insurance claim than have people die.

---

I dunno, I think it's within the realm of possibility that a person would be more willing to deal with the damage to or loss of their property than to see people dead in its defence. Depends what the property is.

I'd rather see dead looters than my business burned down.

Maybe you would. Maybe some other business owner wouldn't.

[Arlenton]

He had a right to both be there and carry the rifle, regardless of how reckless it was. Protestors, and rioters, looters, and crazy people both who may or may not have any connection to the protests, have no right to rule the street and attack someone who is doing nothing illegal.

You have a right to do a lot of shitty things, still would make you a piece of shit.

Protecting yourself makes you a piece of shit?

[American Legionaries]

People would generally be excused for assuming something if the alternative is "unlikely in the extreme" yes?

That was in reference to someone getting stabbed preferring to die than to be defended. In contrast, it's much less unlikely that someone would rather file an insurance claim than have people die.

---

I'd rather see dead looters than my business burned down.

Maybe you would. Maybe some other business owner wouldn't.

Is it really much less likely?

[Ifreann]

That was in reference to someone getting stabbed preferring to die than to be defended. In contrast, it's much less unlikely that someone would rather file an insurance claim than have people die.

---

Maybe you would. Maybe some other business owner wouldn't.

Is it really much less likely?

I think so. You don't tend to see a lot of shopkeepers opening fire on shoplifters, so clearly your absolutist view of property defence is not common.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh good, the organization that was being protested for their excessive use of violence was okay with it. Well. That makes aaaaaaalllllllll the difference.

You could read all of it, as I also referenced video which shows the same.

Stop blaming victims for getting attacked.

Oh look, co-opting language for an actual issue to make it seem legit. I think that fills out my bingo card.

You can blather yourself blue in the fucking face. A teenager brought a rifle to a protest and found a reason to use it and he's a fuckwad for doing so. I don't care if he had a right to do it, I'm not a judge. I'm someone who knows what bringing a gun to a protest says, the tension it creates, and that this is what the people who brought guns to a protest wanted. Good for them they have people that will bend over backwards excusing those actions by repeating 'it was legal' or 'this guy was scary so shooting three people was totally cool' for them. But nope. He's a fuckwad. You're tirelessly defending a fuckwad.

So. Whatya wanna do? Say the same fucking shit back and forth at each other for another fifteen pages? Pretend I give a shit about how you feel about me or care even a little about your respect while you cluck your tongue at me a couple more times? Tell ya what. Repeat yourself one more fucking time because I know you will, but let me just pre-load my response.

Don't buy it.

Now the thread can return to its topic.

[Arlenton]

He is, technically, off the hook. As he was acquitted and cannot be charged again.

bew bew bew bew it was legal bew bew bew. Say it fifteen more times, maybe that will make it okay eventually.

Ignoring any legality. I would still think that self defense, as well as walking around with a firearm in public, is entirely okay.