U.S Massacre Thread

[Kowani]

Time to start filing suits, gents.

not really. Isn't it doomed to die in the house?

why on earth would it be

[Hukhalia]

not really. Isn't it doomed to die in the house?

why on earth would it be

stage 1 of grief

[Tarsonis]

not really. Isn't it doomed to die in the house?

why on earth would it be

because house Republicans have been whipping votes against it since last week. And the progressive caucuse doesn't the bill either. Strange bedfellows and all that

[Big Jim P]

https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-gun-case-guns-rights-concealed-carry/11990123/

Supreme Court strikes down New York conceal carry gun law

Good. One step closer, one more infringement down.

[Big Jim P]

Apparantly one cop - whose wife was a teacher - DID in fact try to enter the building.
His collegues however restrained him and took away his guns.

The more information that comes out, the harder it is to resist conspiracy theories.

I can only see two reasons for the inaction of the cops:
1. Cowardice
2. Waiting to ensure a useful body count.

[Ors Might]

You didn't say words or classifications have a reason as to why they're used, you said that they're made up.

Having a reason doesn’t change that they’re made up. The point you have to make about “assault weapons” isn’t linguistic, it’s pedantry of the most useless order. This isn’t me saying betekenisloos and saying it means a revolver, you know what is meant by assualt weapon.

Actually I don't, the term assault weapon is so vague and inconsistently applied that I haven't the slightest clue what you mean by it.

[Big Jim P]

You literately did make it up

No, I'm not a mod. I can't edit your post to not say:

This is literally exactly why we don't allow the government to maintain a database of gun owners.

If you actually want these kinds of search powers to exist... and you do, you literally posted a link to a conversation advocating for them... then don't say you don't.

And if you don't want these search powers to exist... don't link to a conversation proposing a solution that requires them to exist.

It's that simple.

And this is why you should make your own arguments, instead of outsourcing to other people.

No, you're thinking far too small scale. It's not about protests or personal self-protection or anything like that, though those are valid things, it's about needing weapons to actually fight the aforementioned groups. Capitalism is bad, liberal democracy that enables it is bad, Nazis are bad and these things are not going to go away without violence.

And, yet most of the world manages just fine.

Indeed, our biggest problem with right wing extremists are right wing extremists who are participating in American discourses. Several dozen people have already died for that precise reason.

As I was saying in the other thread, free speech or democracy... pick one. Most of the world chose democracy. The US chose free speech (by which I really mean "fetishising a mind bogglingly idiotic document and using it in lieu of doing any thinking for myself").

See, I look at Waco and think "actually, yes, these groups are precisely as impotent as everyone imagines, and their only actual power is self-immolation". You look at Waco and think "the state won't neutralise these groups, therefore we need gun battles from house to house". Enlightenment is realising that the "won't" isn't a can't. Listen to Haganham, start linking datasets... start mapping the social networks of extremists and give up on gun rights. Certainly, give up on the gun right adjacent issues.

You only have this problem because of gun rights. It is, in fact, possible to walk it back. For all everyone in this thread crows about "it's becoming more accepted" the actual reality is that people don't want to live in a gun society.

Change the way defamation works. Get rid of gerrymandering... which would probably require appointing someone to SCOTUS that isn't a lawyer*. Re-empower the federal legislature. Stop defining donations as speech (I mean, that's a Xerographica position when you think about it). Get rid of the fucking stupid piece of paper.

It's not that I disagree that everything but the guns is the problem because honestly that seems self-evident. The problem is that gun rights are used to defend and justify not changing everything else, too. Of course, the rest of the US Constitution is also a problem but my point is that there's a lot of things you might want to do but you can't, because doing those things would allow for gun regulation (and you can't have that). Take, as a ready example, Haganham's proposal.

*Bizarrely, that's something the US Constitution isn't actually responsible for... it does not require legal training/experience for members of the fourth house of the federal government.

There you are incorrect.

[Big Jim P]

78% of House GOP reps vote against bill intended to create "Amber Alert" style system for mass shootings even though it would not involve any sort of gun control measures.

I support this kind of system.

[Big Jim P]

Of course not, because that's excruciatingly stupid.

So, John Doe can't walk after you waving a knife for six blocks, right? No right to terrorise you, after all.

But John can walk after you waving a gun for six blocks, since that would be his second amendment right, no?

You see there is an inherent contradiction. Either the right to wield guns in public exists and is beyond regulation, or it is subject to regulation... in which case it is not a problem to say "Sorry mate, this is a gun free zone". You want it both ways.

Ah, but you say, it is the waving the gun about that is the problem. Why shouldn't John have a right to wave a gun about? He's not actually doing anything but waving a gun about...

And we've already established that it's not the following you for six blocks since, hey, it's not stalking if you're on public land the whole time according to this thread...

Maybe it's both. Come on, explain. How does it work? How do you have it both ways?

The second amendment says "arms" not "guns". Knives (and a helluva lot of other things) are arms.

[Ors Might]

So, John Doe can't walk after you waving a knife for six blocks, right? No right to terrorise you, after all.

But John can walk after you waving a gun for six blocks, since that would be his second amendment right, no?

You see there is an inherent contradiction. Either the right to wield guns in public exists and is beyond regulation, or it is subject to regulation... in which case it is not a problem to say "Sorry mate, this is a gun free zone". You want it both ways.

Ah, but you say, it is the waving the gun about that is the problem. Why shouldn't John have a right to wave a gun about? He's not actually doing anything but waving a gun about...

And we've already established that it's not the following you for six blocks since, hey, it's not stalking if you're on public land the whole time according to this thread...

Maybe it's both. Come on, explain. How does it work? How do you have it both ways?

The second amendment says "arms" not "guns". Knives (and a helluva lot of other things) are arms.

Society would be improved massively if we popularized the concept of open carrying swords, just saying.

[Red Lake Circle]

The second amendment says "arms" not "guns". Knives (and a helluva lot of other things) are arms.

Society would be improved massively if we popularized the concept of open carrying swords, just saying.

Agreed, just know that you have to be dressed incredibly well in order to not look like a dork

[Hukhalia]

Society would be improved massively if we popularized the concept of open carrying swords, just saying.

Agreed, just know that you have to be dressed incredibly well in order to not look like a dork

nah i want dumb twentysomethings in nirvana t-shirts and really bad makeup wielding giant swords and engaging in combat on the street

[Great Heathen Air Force]

Society would be improved massively if we popularized the concept of open carrying swords, just saying.

Agreed, just know that you have to be dressed incredibly well in order to not look like a dork

The age of the mall ninja has come.

[Big Jim P]

Yes and it's also gun control and gun regulation and a violation of your gun rights.

Oh, it's not a violation of your gun rights because it's a crime? Fine, let's just ban all guns. Now owning any gun is a crime! Do you see why "that's a crime" doesn't actually address the issue posed at all?

I really have no idea what you think your point is here, because I really don't think you agree with "if it's a crime, it doesn't violate your rights".

My point is, there's a difference between open carry and waving a gun around. Open carry with a permit (which I have) is legal where I live, waving a gun around is not. That DOES address the issue posed.

The difference also applies where no permit is required,

[Tarsonis]

You didn't say words or classifications have a reason as to why they're used, you said that they're made up.

Having a reason doesn’t change that they’re made up. The point you have to make about “assault weapons” isn’t linguistic, it’s pedantry of the most useless order. This isn’t me saying betekenisloos and saying it means a revolver, you know what is meant by assualt weapon.

You know, just because a slurpy from 7-11 can accurately be described as Diabetes Water doesn't mean it isn't an inane term made up to cast the object pejoratively. It's not just mindless pedantary, injecting your own rhetoric into the conversation in order to controll it, is a crucial and known part of politicking. Hell, WW had multiple episodes on it, as did House of Cards. And the abortion debate used to be between the Pro-Life and the Pro-Choice crowd. What's it now, the Anti-Choice Reproductive slavers and the Anti-life Demonic baby killers?


I know for a fact that you're not this naive, nor is necro, nor the others, so I can only conclude that this line from y'all is purely in bad faith because you don't actually have a rebuttal but are too proud to admit it.

[Red Lake Circle]

Agreed, just know that you have to be dressed incredibly well in order to not look like a dork

nah i want dumb twentysomethings in nirvana t-shirts and really bad makeup wielding giant swords and engaging in combat on the street

Okay but if they're wearing any kind of makeup at all they might be able to pull it off

[Tarsonis]

The second amendment says "arms" not "guns". Knives (and a helluva lot of other things) are arms.

Society would be improved massively if we popularized the concept of open carrying swords, just saying.

Bring back dueling with standardized rules and regs.

[Hukhalia]

nah i want dumb twentysomethings in nirvana t-shirts and really bad makeup wielding giant swords and engaging in combat on the street

Okay but if they're wearing any kind of makeup at all they might be able to pull it off

actually yeah go goth. goths wielding swords >>>

[Tarsonis]

Okay but if they're wearing any kind of makeup at all they might be able to pull it off

actually yeah go goth. goths wielding swords >>>

True goths wouldn't carry swords, that's conformist

[Red Lake Circle]

Okay but if they're wearing any kind of makeup at all they might be able to pull it off

actually yeah go goth. goths wielding swords >>>

Dressing like a goth of any sort would immediately make you look cool with a sword, no matter how badly you do it

[Great Heathen Air Force]

Society would be improved massively if we popularized the concept of open carrying swords, just saying.

Bring back dueling with standardized rules and regs.

I summon Kuriboh in defense mode.

[Tarsonis]

Bring back dueling with standardized rules and regs.

I summon Kuriboh in defense mode.

I said dueling, not Duh-Duh-Duh-Duh-Dueling.

[Hukhalia]

actually yeah go goth. goths wielding swords >>>

True goths wouldn't carry swords, that's conformist

swords are nonconformist who the fuck carries a sword anymore

actually yeah go goth. goths wielding swords >>>

Dressing like a goth of any sort would immediately make you look cool with a sword, no matter how badly you do it

what about an ostragoth

[Tarsonis]

True goths wouldn't carry swords, that's conformist

swords are nonconformist who the fuck carries a sword anymore

Dressing like a goth of any sort would immediately make you look cool with a sword, no matter how badly you do it

what about an ostragoth

Not now, but if we normalized it then it would be

[Red Lake Circle]

True goths wouldn't carry swords, that's conformist

swords are nonconformist who the fuck carries a sword anymore

Dressing like a goth of any sort would immediately make you look cool with a sword, no matter how badly you do it

what about an ostragoth

I explicitly included them when I added "of any sort" lol