NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Don’t forget ole Ronnie and his signature on Californias first gun control law which was created because the black Panthers where protesting outside the Capitol building with guns

Was the Mulford Act really California's first gun control law?

California’s? Yes. The nation’s? No. The first gun control law in the US was passed in 1934 with the NFA.

California on the other hand didn’t do anything extra until the Mulford Act

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Was the Mulford Act really California's first gun control law?

California’s? Yes. The nation’s? No. The first gun control law in the US was passed in 1934 with the NFA.

California on the other hand didn’t do anything extra until the Mulford Act

And the first gun control law of any kind in the US was actually in 1619 in Colonial Virginia...and it was quite racist: a ban on providing weapons to Natives punishable by death.

Shrillland wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:California’s? Yes. The nation’s? No. The first gun control law in the US was passed in 1934 with the NFA.

California on the other hand didn’t do anything extra until the Mulford Act

And the first gun control law of any kind in the US was actually in 1619 in Colonial Virginia...and it was quite racist: a ban on providing weapons to Natives punishable by death.

This kinda proves my point that the first gun control laws were racist

Umeria wrote:

New haven america wrote:It did.

No it didn't. If fascism was banned for the past 50 years and everything else in America happened the same way, fascists would have just as much if not more influence. This is because words alone don't create extremists, extreme conditions create extremists.

Now, would the threat of fascism be less noticeable if it was officially banned? Absolutely, which shows the danger of doing so. An underground movement can seize control without anyone being able to react, a movement that's out in the open can be recognized and responded to.

The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

Sordhau wrote:

Umeria wrote:No it didn't. If fascism was banned for the past 50 years and everything else in America happened the same way, fascists would have just as much if not more influence. This is because words alone don't create extremists, extreme conditions create extremists.

Now, would the threat of fascism be less noticeable if it was officially banned? Absolutely, which shows the danger of doing so. An underground movement can seize control without anyone being able to react, a movement that's out in the open can be recognized and responded to.

The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

But the internet changes things. It's breathed new life into fringe underground movements, who can not only come together virtually across the world, but advertise and recruit without fear of repercussion. Really, I don't think past examples can be used anymore to accurately predict what will happen next. The game has changed.

Sordhau wrote:

Umeria wrote:No it didn't. If fascism was banned for the past 50 years and everything else in America happened the same way, fascists would have just as much if not more influence. This is because words alone don't create extremists, extreme conditions create extremists.

Now, would the threat of fascism be less noticeable if it was officially banned? Absolutely, which shows the danger of doing so. An underground movement can seize control without anyone being able to react, a movement that's out in the open can be recognized and responded to.

The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

i like how you implicitly concede we need a despotic regime to fight "fascism"

Rusozak wrote:

Sordhau wrote:
The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

But the internet changes things. It's breathed new life into fringe underground movements, who can not only come together virtually across the world, but advertise and recruit without fear of repercussion. Really, I don't think past examples can be used anymore to accurately predict what will happen next. The game has changed.

the internet made more information accessible to more people. not our fault it results in people becoming "fascist"

Bear Stearns wrote:

Rusozak wrote:
But the internet changes things. It's breathed new life into fringe underground movements, who can not only come together virtually across the world, but advertise and recruit without fear of repercussion. Really, I don't think past examples can be used anymore to accurately predict what will happen next. The game has changed.

the internet made more information accessible to more people. not our fault it results in people becoming "fascist"

You should do what Sai does and embrace the label.

Sordhau wrote:

Narland wrote:It is important to discuss the ramification of ideology, because it can be shown that humanity flourishes under freedom, equality, and limited government, and all other ideologies whether authoritarian or totalitarian (vague and arbitrary power to whatever extent) destroys humanity to the extent that it exercises that vague and arbitrary power over the individuals to live their lives in peace.

This is pure propaganda lmfao.

Without rational discourse and respect of human dignity based on reason, the only alternative is force.
Those who refuse to be reasonable in public discourse (or are unreasonable by disallowing public discourse) are playing the fascist. They are the foolish bully who says, "What are you going to do, change my mind with words?" They have asserted that not only can they not be reasoned with, but must must be treated like the unreasonable bully that they are. It is that demeanor that is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry.


The only thing more dangerous than freedom of thought is everything else, as it will be a tyranny of the mind.

Sordhau wrote:

Umeria wrote:No it didn't. If fascism was banned for the past 50 years and everything else in America happened the same way, fascists would have just as much if not more influence. This is because words alone don't create extremists, extreme conditions create extremists.

Now, would the threat of fascism be less noticeable if it was officially banned? Absolutely, which shows the danger of doing so. An underground movement can seize control without anyone being able to react, a movement that's out in the open can be recognized and responded to.

The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

You know that there are foreign powers other than the US, right? So your plan doesn't work even if everything you're saying is true.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Was the Mulford Act really California's first gun control law?

California’s? Yes. The nation’s? No. The first gun control law in the US was passed in 1934 with the NFA.

California on the other hand didn’t do anything extra until the Mulford Act

He’s well known as Commie Raygun. People think otherwise for some reason.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Rusozak wrote:
But the internet changes things. It's breathed new life into fringe underground movements, who can not only come together virtually across the world, but advertise and recruit without fear of repercussion. Really, I don't think past examples can be used anymore to accurately predict what will happen next. The game has changed.

the internet made more information accessible to more people. not our fault it results in people becoming "fascist"

Ah yes, the groypers and basement Nazis that spam comment sections all day, truly an enlightened people.

Rusozak wrote:

Sordhau wrote:
The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

But the internet changes things. It's breathed new life into fringe underground movements, who can not only come together virtually across the world, but advertise and recruit without fear of repercussion. Really, I don't think past examples can be used anymore to accurately predict what will happen next. The game has changed.

This assumes that total anonymity exists on the Internet (it doesn't) and that any portion of the Internet is free from surveillance (it's not).

Bear Stearns wrote:

Sordhau wrote:
The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

i like how you implicitly concede we need a despotic regime to fight "fascism"

I conceded no such thing. I merely pointed out that despotic regimes have proven that suppressing dissident groups is entirely possible.

Narland wrote:

Sordhau wrote:
This is pure propaganda lmfao.

Without rational discourse and respect of human dignity based on reason, the only alternative is force.
Those who refuse to be reasonable in public discourse (or are unreasonable by disallowing public discourse) are playing the fascist. They are the foolish bully who says, "What are you going to do, change my mind with words?" They have asserted that not only can they not be reasoned with, but must must be treated like the unreasonable bully that they are. It is that demeanor that is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry.

By prejudice and bigotry I mean:
PREJ'UDICE, Prejudgment; an opinion or decision of mind, formed without due examination of the facts or arguments which are necessary to a just and impartial determination. It is used in a good or bad sense. Innumerable are the prejudices of education; we are accustomed to believe what we are taught, and to receive opinions from others without examining the grounds by which they can be supported. A man has strong prejudices in favor of his country or his party, or the church in which he has been educated; and often our prejudices are unreasonable. A judge should disabuse himself of prejudice in favor of either party in a suit.

BIG'OTRY, Obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed, or to certain tenets; holding that his own views are in matters of politics and religion unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to, or differing from them as insufferable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which are in conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own opinion.

The only thing more dangerous than freedom of thought is everything else, as it will be a tyranny of the mind.

Spare me your self-righteous proselytism. I was already indoctrinated at the Altar of Liberal Idealism before, and I have no desire to go back to that period of ignorance and naivety on how the world works.

Fascists want to kill me and people like me because my lifestyle doesn't conform to their rigid standards, and people like you want to give them a soapbox and microphone so they can spread their vile message to others. You want to be a Fascist collaborator? Buy a plane ticket to Vichy; because I'm not buying a train ticket to Auschwitz just so you can feel smug while riding atop your moral high horse.

I'm done with you. I don't debate the delusional.

Umeria wrote:

Sordhau wrote:The "they'll just go underground" argument has been debunked almost as many times as Nazi racial science at this point. See, as it turns out people who can't openly associate with people who think like them often have a hard time finding those people in the first place. It's how despotic regimes have managed to survive for decades without worrying about uprisings until foreign powers started to meddle and spread ideas among their population.

You know that there are foreign powers other than the US, right? So your plan doesn't work even if everything you're saying is true.

Where exactly did I mention the US?

Prima Scriptura wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
the internet made more information accessible to more people. not our fault it results in people becoming "fascist"

You should do what Sai does and embrace the label.

Seriously, neither of them are fooling anybody.

Saiwania wrote:The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side. Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens. We can act against censorship with efforts of our own which are in kind. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

If anything, Fascists have China to point to, as an example of the most powerful and mighty example of an authoritarian/totalitarian system that has risen to prominence. If China is becoming #1, it is a sign that democracy won't be the future as is thought.

holy shit
you just- you just pointed to CHINA as an example of a good government. fucking China, which is murdering thousands of Uighurs and barricading people into their homes. a country where COMPANIES HAVE TO HANG NETS OUTSIDE THEIR BUILDINGS TO STOP WORKERS FROM COMMITTING SUICIDE.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT YOU SOMEHOW CLAIMED THAT THE PEOPLE’S DECISION ON GOVERNANCE IS IMPORTANT AND THAT DEMOCRACY IS BAD IN THE SAME BREATH.

I remember why I stopped with this forum.

China is on its way out anyway. it has an aging population who doesn’t want and/or cannot support children. the children that are being born have had enough.

Saiwania wrote:The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side. Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens. We can act against censorship with efforts of our own which are in kind. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

If anything, Fascists have China to point to, as an example of the most powerful and mighty example of an authoritarian/totalitarian system that has risen to prominence. If China is becoming #1, it is a sign that democracy won't be the future as is thought.

China should have been nuked in the 50s. Plus it looks like their growth is gonna be lower than the US' this year

I wish the civil rights movement wasn't so declawed and that more people who weren't unstable rightwing gun nuts had them. At the same time, I do support better background checks and maybe some regulation that keeps assault rifles out of the hands of teenagers.

It's something of an oversimplification to act like the problem is the guns so much as it is the failure of the education system and a lack of mental health resources and opportunity. That ignorance makes people easier to manipulate into supporting partisan bullshit, but being scared of the outside world also has the side effect of making people easier to be indoctrinated into things like white supremacy (especially with misinformation being so rampant on social media).

Still, why the hell should an 18 year old be allowed to have two assault rifles and so much ammo? Beside that, the last shooting really highlighted cowardice in the police department. They're fine teargassing protestors and murdering minorities in the streets, but they just let that monster rampage through a school because they were too scared of doing their fucking job to try to save the children.

nobody should own an AR-15 or similar gun. the only reason to own one is to murder as many people as possible with as little effort as possible. it is not a hunting rifle. it is not necessary to defend oneself. there is one reason to own one, and that goal is not desirable.

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:Hot take: nobody should own an AR-15 or similar gun. the only reason to own one is to murder as many people as possible with as little effort as possible. it is not a hunting rifle. it is not necessary to defend oneself. there is one reason to own one, and that goal is not desirable.

Hot take: you should be deported to northern Quebec if you want to ban AR-15

Port Caverton wrote:

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:nobody should own an AR-15 or similar gun. the only reason to own one is to murder as many people as possible with as little effort as possible. it is not a hunting rifle. it is not necessary to defend oneself. there is one reason to own one, and that goal is not desirable.

Hot take: you should be deported to northern Quebec if you want to ban AR-15

“you should be deported” is not a good argument against anything.

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:

Port Caverton wrote:Hot take: you should be deported to northern Quebec if you want to ban AR-15

Hot take: “you should be deported” is not a good argument against anything.

Hot take: the US should deport traitors and send them to northern canada with no money or housing

Port Caverton wrote:

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
Hot take: “you should be deported” is not a good argument against anything.

Hot take: the US should deport traitors and send them to northern canada with no money or housing

the canadians won’t be happy

Port Caverton wrote:

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
Hot take: “you should be deported” is not a good argument against anything.

Hot take: the US should deport traitors and send them to northern canada with no money or housing

We have a thread for hot takes.

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:

Port Caverton wrote:Hot take: the US should deport traitors and send them to northern canada with no money or housing

the canadians won’t be happy

annex canada then. Trudeau is a lib anyway so it's not like it matters.

Port Caverton wrote:

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
the canadians won’t be happy

annex canada then. Trudeau is a lib anyway so it's not like it matters.

Look I like the retro future aesthetic of pre war Fallout as much as the next guy but the foreign policy decisions of that era are not something to emulate.