U.S Massacre Thread

[Hukhalia]

pride parades should be armed to the teeth tbh

This would be a great prank to play on Fascists.

"We've given you an army of heavily armed men, united behind a common ideology, marching down the streets of American cities in (presumably) leather uniforms, under a flag that is not the American flag."

"What do you mean this isn't what you want?"

"C'mon, this is exactly what you asked for!"

tbf it wouldnt be an army of heavily armed men. it'd be men and women and xenogendered individuals and god knows what other beautiful malefactions we can conceive

[Great Heathen Air Force]

This would be a great prank to play on Fascists.

"We've given you an army of heavily armed men, united behind a common ideology, marching down the streets of American cities in (presumably) leather uniforms, under a flag that is not the American flag."

"What do you mean this isn't what you want?"

"C'mon, this is exactly what you asked for!"

tbf it wouldnt be an army of heavily armed men. it'd be men and women and xenogendered individuals and god knows what other beautiful malefactions we can conceive

Fair.

[Heloin]

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.

Then you're a liar.

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.

My politics are I own guns, have used guns since I was a small child, and think a bunch hothead Americans whose first reaction to dead children is to cry about their fictional oppression have never had a single good political point to make in their lives and rely on lying about semantics to discredit others.

[Thermodolia]

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.

I don’t support the method they wanted to use though. The Amber Alert would go off even if there was a defensive use of a gun or a suicide.

It’s a way to engineer fear

[Thermodolia]

I do. Pretty much everyone has a pool in Phoenix, it’s kinda standard

And necessary as the temp reaches 100+

A lot of people carry there as well.

And that’s why I worry about the pool being bathtub temps which can sometimes happen if it gets hot enough

[Risottia]

We who aren't Americans rarely consider "gun rights" to be "human rights".

It'd be a lot cooler if you did.

If you considered them human rights, you'd be giving guns for free to every human on your territory. You aren't hence you don't.

[American Legionaries]

It'd be a lot cooler if you did.

If you considered them human rights, you'd be giving guns for free to every human on your territory. You aren't hence you don't.

You're welcome to provide the funding for that if you'd like.

[Kowani]

why on earth would it be

because house Republicans have been whipping votes against it since last week.

McCarthy/Scalise can’t whip for shit lmao

And the progressive caucuse doesn't the bill either. Strange bedfellows and all that

they won’t like it, they’ll vote for it

[Kerwa]

It'd be a lot cooler if you did.

If you considered them human rights, you'd be giving guns for free to every human on your territory. You aren't hence you don't.

The US used to have a program that provided subsidized M1s to people. (Actual military weapons).

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you considered them human rights, you'd be giving guns for free to every human on your territory. You aren't hence you don't.

The US used to have a program that provided subsidized M1s to people. (Actual military weapons).

CMP still does that, though the process might have changed a bit in the not so distant past iirc.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The US used to have a program that provided subsidized M1s to people. (Actual military weapons).

CMP still does that, though the process might have changed a bit in the not so distant past iirc.

Yeah, CMP used to be a lot cooler then it is today.

[Haganham]

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

nah. Its the voters who are up in arms about it.

[Dylar]

Time to start filing suits, gents.

how does this bill infringe on your rights in any way? Do you honestly think there ought to be zero restrictions whatsoever when it comes to gun ownership?

(a) IMPROVING NICS EXAMINATION OF JUVENILE
16 RECORDS.—
17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18,
18 United States Code, is amended—
19 (A) in subsection (d)—
20 (i) in the matter preceding paragraph
21 (1), by inserting ‘‘, including as a juvenile’’
22 after ‘‘such person’’; and
23 (ii) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘at
24 16 years of age or older’’ after ‘‘institution’’; and
(B) in subsection (t)—
2 (i) in paragraph (1)—
3 (I) in subparagraph (B)(ii)—
4 (aa) by inserting ‘‘subject to
5 subparagraph (C),’’ before ‘‘3
6 business days’’; and
7 (bb) by striking ‘‘and’’ at
8 the end;
9 (II) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); and
11 (III) by inserting after subpara12 graph (B) the following:
13 ‘‘(C) in the case of a person less than 21 years
14 of age, in addition to all other requirements of this
15 chapter—
16 ‘‘(i) the system provides the licensee with
17 a unique identification number;
18 ‘‘(ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on
19 which State offices are open) have elapsed since
20 the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that cause exists to further investigate a possibly disqualifying juvenile record under subsection (d); or
24 ‘‘(iii) in the case of such a person with respect to whom the system notifies the licensee
in accordance with clause (ii) that cause exists
2 to further investigate a possibly disqualifying
3 juvenile record under subsection (d), 10 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee
6 contacted the system, and the system has not
7 notified the licensee that—
8 ‘‘(I) transferring the firearm to the
9 other person would violate subsection (d)
10 of this section; or
11 ‘‘(II) receipt of a firearm by the other
12 person would violate subsection (g) or (n)
13 of this section, or State, local, or Tribal
14 law; and’’;
15 (ii) in paragraph (2)—
16 (I) by inserting ‘‘transfer or’’ before ‘‘receipt’’; and
18 (II) by striking ‘‘(g) or (n)’’ and
19 inserting ‘‘(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)’’;
21 (iii) in paragraph (4)—
22 (I) by inserting ‘‘transfer of a
23 firearm to or’’ before ‘‘receipt’’; and
(II) by striking ‘‘(g) or (n)’’ and
2 inserting ‘‘(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)’’; and
4 (iv) in paragraph (5)—
5 (I) by inserting ‘‘transfer of a
6 firearm to or’’ before ‘‘receipt’’; and
7 (II) by striking ‘‘(g) or (n)’’ and
8 inserting ‘‘(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)’’.

Basically this here denies any 18-21 year old from purchasing a firearm if they have so much as a drug offense on their juvenile record. Furthermore, if say in the future there's another shooting that gains national attention and it turns out the hypothetical shooter was a 30 year old with no criminal record but had a sealed juvenile record, then this pretty much allows the government to go "Hey, why don't we open up juvenile records for everyone that purchases a firearm now?" which is going to fuck over a lot of people regardless of whether they reformed themselves after getting released from juvenile during their teenage years.

[Tarsonis]

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.

Then you're a liar.

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.

My politics are I own guns, have used guns since I was a small child, and think a bunch hothead Americans whose first reaction to dead children is to cry about their fictional oppression have never had a single good political point to make in their lives and rely on lying about semantics to discredit others.

That is in fact, what you're doing. Nice projection coupled with ignorant self-righteousness.

[Vassenor]

how does this bill infringe on your rights in any way? Do you honestly think there ought to be zero restrictions whatsoever when it comes to gun ownership?

(a) IMPROVING NICS EXAMINATION OF JUVENILE
16 RECORDS.—
17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18,
18 United States Code, is amended—
19 (A) in subsection (d)—
20 (i) in the matter preceding paragraph
21 (1), by inserting ‘‘, including as a juvenile’’
22 after ‘‘such person’’; and
23 (ii) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘at
24 16 years of age or older’’ after ‘‘institution’’; and
(B) in subsection (t)—
2 (i) in paragraph (1)—
3 (I) in subparagraph (B)(ii)—
4 (aa) by inserting ‘‘subject to
5 subparagraph (C),’’ before ‘‘3
6 business days’’; and
7 (bb) by striking ‘‘and’’ at
8 the end;
9 (II) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); and
11 (III) by inserting after subpara12 graph (B) the following:
13 ‘‘(C) in the case of a person less than 21 years
14 of age, in addition to all other requirements of this
15 chapter—
16 ‘‘(i) the system provides the licensee with
17 a unique identification number;
18 ‘‘(ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on
19 which State offices are open) have elapsed since
20 the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that cause exists to further investigate a possibly disqualifying juvenile record under subsection (d); or
24 ‘‘(iii) in the case of such a person with respect to whom the system notifies the licensee
in accordance with clause (ii) that cause exists
2 to further investigate a possibly disqualifying
3 juvenile record under subsection (d), 10 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee
6 contacted the system, and the system has not
7 notified the licensee that—
8 ‘‘(I) transferring the firearm to the
9 other person would violate subsection (d)
10 of this section; or
11 ‘‘(II) receipt of a firearm by the other
12 person would violate subsection (g) or (n)
13 of this section, or State, local, or Tribal
14 law; and’’;
15 (ii) in paragraph (2)—
16 (I) by inserting ‘‘transfer or’’ before ‘‘receipt’’; and
18 (II) by striking ‘‘(g) or (n)’’ and
19 inserting ‘‘(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)’’;
21 (iii) in paragraph (4)—
22 (I) by inserting ‘‘transfer of a
23 firearm to or’’ before ‘‘receipt’’; and
(II) by striking ‘‘(g) or (n)’’ and
2 inserting ‘‘(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)’’; and
4 (iv) in paragraph (5)—
5 (I) by inserting ‘‘transfer of a
6 firearm to or’’ before ‘‘receipt’’; and
7 (II) by striking ‘‘(g) or (n)’’ and
8 inserting ‘‘(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)’’.

Basically this here denies any 18-21 year old from purchasing a firearm if they have so much as a drug offense on their juvenile record. Furthermore, if say in the future there's another shooting that gains national attention and it turns out the hypothetical shooter was a 30 year old with no criminal record but had a sealed juvenile record, then this pretty much allows the government to go "Hey, why don't we open up juvenile records for everyone that purchases a firearm now?" which is going to fuck over a lot of people regardless of whether they reformed themselves after getting released from juvenile during their teenage years.

That sounds like an argument for broad drug posession decriminalisation then.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Basically this here denies any 18-21 year old from purchasing a firearm if they have so much as a drug offense on their juvenile record. Furthermore, if say in the future there's another shooting that gains national attention and it turns out the hypothetical shooter was a 30 year old with no criminal record but had a sealed juvenile record, then this pretty much allows the government to go "Hey, why don't we open up juvenile records for everyone that purchases a firearm now?" which is going to fuck over a lot of people regardless of whether they reformed themselves after getting released from juvenile during their teenage years.

That sounds like an argument for broad drug posession decriminalisation then.

Tell us that you didn't read past the first sentence without actually telling us that you didn't read past the first sentence.

[Ors Might]

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.

Then you're a liar.

What am I lying about exactly? That I don't know what definition you're specifically using or that the term assault weapon is vague and inconsistently applied?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Then you're a liar.

What am I lying about exactly? That I don't know what definition you're specifically using or that the term assault weapon is vague and inconsistently applied?

Deliberately vague and inconsistent even.

[The Black Forrest]

Gun dudes.

Boyfriend loophole. What is that? A GF buys and gifts a gun?

Also, the news mentioned the new bill will be an effort to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. How exactly?

[Senkaku]

Gun dudes.

Boyfriend loophole. What is that? A GF buys and gifts a gun?

boyfriend loophole gf/school shooter bf? idk either lol but it is a funny name

[The Black Forrest]

Then you're a liar.

What am I lying about exactly? That I don't know what definition you're specifically using or that the term assault weapon is vague and inconsistently applied?

Grammar arguments are boring.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Gun dudes.

Boyfriend loophole. What is that? A GF buys and gifts a gun?

Also, the news mentioned the new bill will be an effort to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. How exactly?

From my understanding of briefly reading over it....

"Boyfriend Loophole"...

As the law previously stood, you had to be convicted of at least misdemeanor domestic violence against a spouse/common law baby mama to be red flagged and have your guns forcibly taken and denied 2A rights. What this does, is drastically lower the bar from spouse to merely anyone dating for basically more then a day. While on paper this might sound like a good thing, it's stupidly open to abuse meaning that anyone who's ex is spiteful, vengeful, crazy, or just plain out to get someone because they can just has to report them to the police for alleged verbal threats and that's now enough to strip someone of their 2A rights and place them on Red Flag status no questions asked with ZERO risk to the person making said accusations. Said innocent person then has to pay out of pocket to go to court and prove their innocence before a judge before they can even hope of being removed from said list and having their rights restored with no guarantee that they will get their property back as well.

[Grinning Dragon]

Gun dudes.

Boyfriend loophole. What is that? A GF buys and gifts a gun?

Also, the news mentioned the new bill will be an effort to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. How exactly?

It basically extends the same type of actions that is used for married people in domestic disputes.

[Ors Might]

What am I lying about exactly? That I don't know what definition you're specifically using or that the term assault weapon is vague and inconsistently applied?

Grammar arguments are boring.

Attempting to understand what someone means by a specific term isn't a grammar argument, it's kind of integral to having a discussion.

[The Black Forrest]

Grammar arguments are boring.

Attempting to understand what someone means by a specific term isn't a grammar argument, it's kind of integral to having a discussion.

Oh I suspect you understand what they are trying to say.