Lurker > _RETS_

gbpxl posted...

Yet they still have them. And again, even with a 100% success rate, eventually you end up with an unarmed populace. This isn't good to give the government a monopoly on arms, which has been "proven time and time and time and fucking time again throughout history."

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And to say the 2nd amendment is not relevant is akin to saying the right to be able to defend yourself is no longer relevant. That is an evil point of view.

Owning an instrument that can ends someones life in a second having the right to defend oneself are not mutually inclusive.

Nope, but as long as guns exist, the right to ADEQUATELY defend yourself must also exist. Fighting a guy who was a gun with a sharpened pencil is "defense" but it is not adequate.

How old are you? It seems your capacity to actually think is severely inhibited or not entirely developed yet.

They wouldn't (effectively) exist if I were in charge. There's no legitimate reason to own a gun other than... to stop another gun. Get rid of them, then you won't need to defend against em.

And that will literally never happen as much as the leftists want it to. And the fact that they DO exist and would effectively exist for a great long time until there are no more left would put a lot of bodies at your feet.

Anyway, I'm done for the night because I've got shit to do. Hopefully all the straw men you've constructed will keep you busy while I'm gone

It won't happen? That's what they said about slavery. They exist because of fear and because it's a huge money maker.

I've suggested before that they grandfather in all current gun owners and just take em from the people that shouldn't have been allowed to buy them (theyre doing that right now.) and then outlaw the sale of firearms to citizens. It wouldn't stop all mass shootings but they'd go down. you'd still be able to murder animals with bow arrows and defend yourself with your hands, mace, crossbow, whatever.

Except for all the criminals that would still have guns in the interim. And even long term when all the current weapons break and their is no more ammo because the sell of weapons and ammo was stopped, the government then has sole possession of arms, and we are back to having to explain to you why exactly that is not something you want as proven time and time and time and fucking time again throughout history.

This is too simple for you not to understand.

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

_RETS_ posted...

It is the fact that the population is armed is a deterrent. This isn't hard.

Your "anyone who thinks they can take their gun and beat the military is stupid" point is analogous to saying "anyone who thinks they can take their tools and build a house in a day is stupid." Is an individual or a couple individuals going to build it? No. But a mass of them can. The armed individual is not the fucking point. It's the armed masses.

Good thing there isn't a mass amount of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with drones that can blow up entire square miles without any gun being able to reach it and tanks that can withstand rpg's like they were nothing.

You could have tens of thousands of your redneck friends all banded together with your private AR's and you'd still be nothing more than a buzzing fly in the face of the military.

This whole militia thing worked out in the old days when the best weapons were cannons and muskets. Not even remotely close to being comparable to what we have today.

Another god damn idiot comes out.

"Your redneck friends". That's how you have to argue? Really? I hate rednecks, hick culture, being around "country folk", I do not own guns nor do I even care for guns, and if I could snap my fingers and have all guns vanish I absolutely would.

That doesn't change my ability to fucking think.

But keep believing the US would actively destroy its own infrastructure with all the measures you suggest are the likeliest methods they would use.

And also keep thinking that anyone who understands the importance of the 2A thinks them and their group of friends are going to be effective. Its about the armed MASSES, millions upon millions upon millions that are the deterrent. Look at history to see what happens otherwise.

Even if they get crushed, why the fuck would you advocate making it even easier with a disarmed populace? That is an evil point of view.

When you say stupid shit like you did, it makes it really easy for people to expose you as an idiot. I recommend refining your argument and returning.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And to say the 2nd amendment is not relevant is akin to saying the right to be able to defend yourself is no longer relevant. That is an evil point of view.

Owning an instrument that can ends someones life in a second having the right to defend oneself are not mutually inclusive.

Nope, but as long as guns exist, the right to ADEQUATELY defend yourself must also exist. Fighting a guy who was a gun with a sharpened pencil is "defense" but it is not adequate.

How old are you? It seems your capacity to actually think is severely inhibited or not entirely developed yet.

They wouldn't (effectively) exist if I were in charge. There's no legitimate reason to own a gun other than... to stop another gun. Get rid of them, then you won't need to defend against em.

And that will literally never happen as much as the leftists want it to. And the fact that they DO exist and would effectively exist for a great long time until there are no more left would put a lot of bodies at your feet.

Anyway, I'm done for the night because I've got shit to do. Hopefully all the straw men you've constructed will keep you busy while I'm gone

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

It is the fact that the population is armed is a deterrent. This isn't hard.

Your "anyone who thinks they can take their gun and beat the military is stupid" point is analogous to saying "anyone who thinks they can take their tools and build a house in a day is stupid." Is an individual or a couple individuals going to build it? No. But a mass of them can. The armed individual is not the fucking point. It's the armed masses.

Dabid Koresh had a lot of guns. Didn't stop the ATF, did it?

You're right, a few armed people in an enclosed space is absolutely comparable to an entire country.

God you are stupid.

Name a situation where the entire country is going to be fighting against the U.S. government.

Jesus god damn Christ. An entire country as far as area, as opposed to a single compound. The armed masses across that area being the deterrent.

BTW, if David Koresh didn't have all those guns, the ATF could have marched right in from the second they arrived and imposed their will immediately. But their apprehension to do that is exactly the point.

I really shouldn't have to keep explaining this to you. Would pictures help or something?

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And to say the 2nd amendment is not relevant is akin to saying the right to be able to defend yourself is no longer relevant. That is an evil point of view.

Owning an instrument that can ends someones life in a second having the right to defend oneself are not mutually inclusive.

Nope, but as long as guns exist, the right to ADEQUATELY defend yourself must also exist. Fighting a guy who was a gun with a sharpened pencil is "defense" but it is not adequate.

How old are you? It seems your capacity to actually think is severely inhibited or not entirely developed yet.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

It is the fact that the population is armed is a deterrent. This isn't hard.

Your "anyone who thinks they can take their gun and beat the military is stupid" point is analogous to saying "anyone who thinks they can take their tools and build a house in a day is stupid." Is an individual or a couple individuals going to build it? No. But a mass of them can. The armed individual is not the fucking point. It's the armed masses.

Dabid Koresh had a lot of guns. Didn't stop the ATF, did it?

You're right, a few armed people in an enclosed space is absolutely comparable to an entire country.

God you are stupid.

And to say the 2nd amendment is not relevant is akin to saying the right to be able to defend yourself is no longer relevant. That is an evil point of view.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

gbpxl posted...

Scandinavian countries have a disarmed population

I can't believe people think this is true

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

Finland, Sweden, Norway all have like 1/3 of the amount of guns the U.S. does, per capita. it's not disarmed, I stand corrected. but still... it's a lot less. and I guarantee you it's harder to buy a gun there/

Does Scandanvia happen to have a few immensely powerful allies that would intervene should they choose to turn tyrannical against their less-armed populace?

Seems there is an armed deterrent keeping that from happening.

The flip-side doesn't work, because allies waging war on a tyrannical US government on US soil would end badly for them. So the armed deterrent is the citizens.

Anyone who has a gun because they think they need it to defend themselves in case the United States military is ever going to attack them should never have been allowed a gun in the first place.

I've already painstakingly broken this down for your stupid ass and I'm not going to do it again. You are a fool, you are committed to remaining a fool, and you deserve everything that happens to fools.

Of course you could just be a troll, which I hope is the case, but even with that my my opinion of you is the same.

I'll humor you. Let's pretend that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today (it's not.) You would need a much bigger gun than your AR-15 to fend off any military forces. So why don't they allow people to have stuff that'd actually be a deterrent- M2 Machine gun, M1 Abrams tank, Apache helicopters, rocket launchers, grenade launchers etc?

It is the fact that the population is armed is a deterrent. This isn't hard.

Your "anyone who thinks they can take their gun and beat the military is stupid" point is analogous to saying "anyone who thinks they can take their tools and build a house in a day is stupid." Is an individual or a couple individuals going to build it? No. But a mass of them can. The armed individual is not the fucking point. It's the armed masses.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

gbpxl posted...

Scandinavian countries have a disarmed population

I can't believe people think this is true

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

Finland, Sweden, Norway all have like 1/3 of the amount of guns the U.S. does, per capita. it's not disarmed, I stand corrected. but still... it's a lot less. and I guarantee you it's harder to buy a gun there/

Does Scandanvia happen to have a few immensely powerful allies that would intervene should they choose to turn tyrannical against their less-armed populace?

Seems there is an armed deterrent keeping that from happening.

The flip-side doesn't work, because allies waging war on a tyrannical US government on US soil would end badly for them. So the armed deterrent is the citizens.

Anyone who has a gun because they think they need it to defend themselves in case the United States military is ever going to attack them should never have been allowed a gun in the first place.

I've already painstakingly broken this down for your stupid ass and I'm not going to do it again. You are a fool, you are committed to remaining a fool, and you deserve everything that happens to fools.

Of course you could just be a troll, which I hope is the case, but even with that my my opinion of you is the same.

gbpxl posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

gbpxl posted...

Scandinavian countries have a disarmed population

I can't believe people think this is true

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

Finland, Sweden, Norway all have like 1/3 of the amount of guns the U.S. does, per capita. it's not disarmed, I stand corrected. but still... it's a lot less. and I guarantee you it's harder to buy a gun there/

Does Scandanvia happen to have a few immensely powerful allies that would intervene should they choose to turn tyrannical against their less-armed populace?

Seems there is an armed deterrent keeping that from happening.

The flip-side doesn't work, because allies waging war on a tyrannical US government on US soil would end badly for them. So the armed deterrent is the citizens.

Sativa_Rose posted...

gbpxl posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Reminder: Cliven Bundy used the Second Amendment to secure his grazing rights from the Feds, and he won.

That land was set aside for the desert tortoise, an endangered species. a little more worthy of a cause than this racist anti-government nutjob and his contributions to factory farms

If the Federal Government wants to protect land for nature conservation, it should not be through the BLM

_RETS_ posted...

Jesus god almighty. The comprehension in this thread is abysmal. His point is the populace would be crushed by the military. He also says the kills were 20:1 in Iraq War. Okay, so, EVEN IF WE ASSUME every single soldier turns on its citizens, it still gives the populace a chance above 0% for survival and victory. And since we know 100% of the military won't turn on us, that makes his point even more illegitimate and thus utterly defeated.

Come on. Fuck

I wasn't actually referring to your specific point, just that I thought the comment about having to be dumb was silly.

Got ya, but that comment was made in the context of the situation I outlines above. In these topics lately, seems everyone is so eager to misrepresent, ignore context, falsely attribute motive, etc so perhaps I projected my frustration with that onto my reply to you. Sorry bruh

Sativa_Rose posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Assuming every soldier would be willing to kill US citizens?

That would be a really dumb thing to assume. It would also be really dumb to assume the US military would just carpet bomb its own citizens, which would be even less restraint than was used in Iraq

Look who I am talking to. I have to assume the dumbest possible thing.

This is a silly attitude. It's like "my opponent is being dumb, therefore I have to be dumb too, just in the opposite direction"

Jesus god almighty. The comprehension in this thread is abysmal. His point is the populace would be crushed by the military. He also says the kills were 20:1 in Iraq War. Okay, so, EVEN IF WE ASSUME every single soldier turns on its citizens, it still gives the populace a chance above 0% for survival and victory. And since we know 100% of the military won't turn on us, that makes his point even more illegitimate and thus utterly defeated.

Come on. Fuck

edit: changed Vietnam to Iraq War, although the edit changes nothing

Sativa_Rose posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Assuming every soldier would be willing to kill US citizens?

That would be a really dumb thing to assume. It would also be really dumb to assume the US military would just carpet bomb its own citizens, which would be even less restraint than was used in Iraq

Look who I am talking to. I have to assume the dumbest possible thing.

gbpxl posted...

AssultTank posted...

gbpxl posted...

the Army would/could decimate you and your gun toting pals with ease.

Because they have done so well against guerrilla fighters in the past.

Actually in the Iraq War, they had a kill ratio of 20:1

How many civilians do we have vs. soldiers? Assuming every soldier would be willing to kill US citizens?

gbpxl posted...

How has it worked for all of the countries with a disarmed populace? Please go on and answer with an actual answer, not another question.

If you're referring to Nazi Germany, obviously not very well, but our leaders aren't Nazis. and even if they were, the Army would/could decimate you and your gun toting pals with ease.

I'm referring to the majority of countries with a disarmed populace. How is that going?

I don't care for guns and don't own any and if I do it will be for protection in my home, so stop making a stupid ass of yourself.

But an armed populace is an incredible deterrent against government tyranny. You are dishonest to think otherwise and naive/stupid to want to give sole control of arms to ANY government. Even if the armed populace would get beaten by the military (just like we dominated the Vietnamese........), it is a better to have a population that can defend itself, even against losing odds, than one that is defenseless. You cannot, with any intellectual honesty, contest that.

If you are locked in a room and a 400lb slab of muscle is coming in to murder you, you would rather be able to adequately defend yourself than not, even if you end up dead either way. I don't have to even phrase that as a question, because unless you're an idiot I already answered it for you.

If you are the 400lb slab of muscle, you will be much more hesitant to go into that same room if you knew your target had the ability to defend itself than if it was defenseless.

There really isn't much more discussion to be had with you.

Muffinz0rz posted...

FrenchCrunch posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

FrenchCrunch posted...

that was bad

that's funny

_RETS_ posted...

Okay bud you have to Venmo me for the expense

what expense

My expense of paying for for the mascara

Muffinz0rz posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Welching on what? I didn't bet on anything

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76418457/897934481

fine, but if my mascara runs you have to send me some more

ok but you have to pay for it

Okay bud you have to Venmo me for the expense

Muffinz0rz posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Welching on what? I didn't bet on anything

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76418457/897934481

fine, but if my mascara runs you have to send me some more

Muffinz0rz posted...

Welching on what? I didn't bet on anything

Muffinz0rz posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

_RETS_ posted...

HylianFox posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Should be meeting him pretty soon where I work. Having recently started a rewatch of Parks and Rec, I am pretty excited

Get his number

Im gonna get his dingus

pics with you holding up a sheet of paper that has your username written on it or it dint happen

I'll write it on his dingus

screenshotted

Haha that's not a serious statement man. If he comes in I'll try to get a pick with him, but I don't often bother with people who come in because I'm sure it's annoying

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

would rather it be where he wasnt able to buy the gun to begin with

That isn't the question you unbelievable hack. Since you know that bad guys DO currently have guns, if one came into your room tonight would you rather have a gun to defend yourself or any of the shit you mentioned? It is a very straight forward question with TWO possible answers, not a third answer to a question no one asked.

Obviously I would rather have a gun, but what I was getting at was that if they outlawed the sale of guns entirely, it'd be almost impossible to acquire a gun unless you stole it from a police officer or a soldier. And in that case, someone is breaking into my house, I'm either going to leave my house, if possible, or use a baseball bat.

There you go. So you answered your own question as to why they can be necessary in a world where guns are not, in fact, non-existent.

So make them non-existent (for civilian use)

Great, get on that, in the meantime, people have a right to adequately defend themselves How does it work for countries where the government has the sole possession on firearms? What's the historical precedent look like for a defenseless population?

How does it work for those countries? Australia seems to be doing alright. They stopped having mass shootings after they restricted gun ownership in 1996, must be a coincidence.

Australia doesn't have a disarmed populace. In fact their mandatory buyback (i.e. ban?) didn't even remove most of their guns. By the way, how's their violent crime trend looking compared to ours over the last several years?

How has it worked for all of the countries with a disarmed populace? Please go on and answer with an actual answer, not another question.

Muffinz0rz posted...

_RETS_ posted...

HylianFox posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Should be meeting him pretty soon where I work. Having recently started a rewatch of Parks and Rec, I am pretty excited

Get his number

Im gonna get his dingus

pics with you holding up a sheet of paper that has your username written on it or it dint happen

I'll write it on his dingus

gmanthebest posted...

Why does everyone get on the US's ass for trying to deport illegal immigrants when any other 1st world country would do the same?

No one is going to answer this question.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

would rather it be where he wasnt able to buy the gun to begin with

That isn't the question you unbelievable hack. Since you know that bad guys DO currently have guns, if one came into your room tonight would you rather have a gun to defend yourself or any of the shit you mentioned? It is a very straight forward question with TWO possible answers, not a third answer to a question no one asked.

Obviously I would rather have a gun, but what I was getting at was that if they outlawed the sale of guns entirely, it'd be almost impossible to acquire a gun unless you stole it from a police officer or a soldier. And in that case, someone is breaking into my house, I'm either going to leave my house, if possible, or use a baseball bat.

There you go. So you answered your own question as to why they can be necessary in a world where guns are not, in fact, non-existent.

So make them non-existent (for civilian use)

Great, get on that, in the meantime, people have a right to adequately defend themselves How does it work for countries where the government has the sole possession on firearms? What's the historical precedent look like for a defenseless population?

Ammonitida posted...

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

You'll have to explain what you're talking about.

But you're also acting as if I have to see things as either this or that. I didn't say GOPers haven't said or done anything racist, had bad ideas, or that I agree with everything that is said. I said for this one specific issue there is more to it than what you're suggesting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lawmakers-meet-fbi-director-over-black-identity-extremists-report-n824801

"It's a characterization and it's very inaccurate of the movement that is going on," Richmond said. "We don't want anyone to view Black Lives Matter or other organizations that protest as an extremist group or a domestic terrorist group because we think that's very dangerous."

The report in question distinguished BLM from the "black identity extremists" who murdered a number of people in 2016 (10 in four separate ideology motivated attacks). And IIRC, this study was started under Obama.

Who makes the interpretation who becomes a "black identity extremist?"' Jackson Lee told NBC News after the meeting. "

The report focused on this group and others like it

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

Both Micah Johnson and Gavin Long identified with such groups (Gavin fancied himself as a "Moor"). Of course, condemning such extremism upset many on the left wing which is not surprising given the current Louis Farrakhan scandal that has ensnared a number of black politicians.

Point is, people pretending to be upset about this are simply virtue signaling, which is the purpose for which the resolution was created in the first place.

If the right proposed the same thing for black militants but had a broad definition of it, especially in a society where disagreement gets you labelled as a black militant, the leftists here would adamantly oppose it and rightfully so.

gbpxl posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gbpxl posted...

would rather it be where he wasnt able to buy the gun to begin with

That isn't the question you unbelievable hack. Since you know that bad guys DO currently have guns, if one came into your room tonight would you rather have a gun to defend yourself or any of the shit you mentioned? It is a very straight forward question with TWO possible answers, not a third answer to a question no one asked.

Obviously I would rather have a gun, but what I was getting at was that if they outlawed the sale of guns entirely, it'd be almost impossible to acquire a gun unless you stole it from a police officer or a soldier. And in that case, someone is breaking into my house, I'm either going to leave my house, if possible, or use a baseball bat.

There you go. So you answered your own question as to why they can be necessary in a world where guns are not, in fact, non-existent.

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

You'll have to explain what you're talking about.

But you're also acting as if I have to see things as either this or that. I didn't say GOPers haven't said or done anything racist, had bad ideas, or that I agree with everything that is said. I said for this one specific issue there is more to it than what you're suggesting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-lawmakers-meet-fbi-director-over-black-identity-extremists-report-n824801

Yes, I oppose that if it has a broad definition that is being used to target any group of people. Same as this.

And this isn't necessarily to you, but don't obfuscate. This isn't about not being able to call terrorists terrorists. Terrorists should be condemned as such be they white, black, christian, muslim, right, left or anything else. The problem, however, is having flippantly labelling people as terrorists who are not.

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Honestly, an explanation was likely not needed. Dems knew it wouldn't pass and had no intention of it actually passing. They most likely wanted it to fail so they could point at the right and scream about Neo-nazis.

Again, definitions for Neo-nazis would have to be narrowed down quite a bit if you're going to start labelling people as terrorists. Until the resolution includes very clear-cut and consistent ways of determining that, the resolution shouldn't pass. With the left so flippant with their labelling of Neo-nazi/alt-right/supremacist, it is imperative that the language be clear, the definition be precise, and the means of enforcement be consistent.

When Sessions said he will go out black Identity Extremist did you complain ?

You'll have to explain what you're talking about.

But you're also acting as if I have to see things as either this or that. I didn't say GOPers haven't said or done anything racist, had bad ideas, or that I agree with everything that is said. I said for this one specific issue there is more to it than what you're suggesting.

Still though, please elaborate on the question your asking because I really don't know what you're referring to.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Musourenka posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

They made the mistake of running. That?s all this is. And I say this supporting their right to have lived here.

If they were running from ICE, then they were likely afraid of being sent back to their previous country, with or without their kids.

Then they shouldn't have come here illegally and had kids. It's an easy way to not end up in this situation.

Why shouldn't they have come here illegally?

Try to go to any 1st world country illegally and see what happens.

Just think of the damn problems.

- Rampant mental illness in that community

- Rampant drug abuse in that community

- a good deal of them are veterans, very possibly stricken with PTSD

- They sleep fucking OUTSIDE so what is keeping literally anyone from stealing their government issue shotgun?

This is the kind of stupid bullshit that makes pro-2A look like fucking joke. The opposite end of the spectrum as the "ban guns" leftists. Sad state of affairs

cjsdowg posted...

The Admiral posted...

VectorChaos posted...

s0nicfan posted...

IIRC this was posted a few days ago and something explicitly missing from this version of the story is that this resolution ALSO included "alt-right" in the list of people to denounce as terrorists, but did not define the boundaries of what alt-right meant.

Here's the language from the resolution itself:

WHEREAS, today, white nationalism has attempted to reinvent itself, self-identifying as the "Alt-Right,"

So basically this was a trap resolution made to either let the left openly declare anyone they want terrorists by nature of being "alt-right" or to let them declare as the TC is doing that the right supports white nationalists.

Lmao whoops there cj

Thanks, I missed.

Yeah, topic over.

Yet that is not why the Republicans who rejected said that they rejected. They rejected with out explanation. They even blamed the guy who brought the bill for not getting second before they talked about the Bill. Lastly they didn't even won't to talk about it. If they were upset about a term they could have said something about in the debate.

Honestly, an explanation was likely not needed. Dems knew it wouldn't pass and had no intention of it actually passing. They most likely wanted it to fail so they could point at the right and scream about Neo-nazis.

Again, definitions for Neo-nazis would have to be narrowed down quite a bit if you're going to start labelling people as terrorists. Until the resolution includes very clear-cut and consistent ways of determining that, the resolution shouldn't pass. With the left so flippant with their labelling of Neo-nazi/alt-right/supremacist, it is imperative that the language be clear, the definition be precise, and the means of enforcement be consistent.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Those are all vague non-statements.

give detailed examples of what any of them actually entails

Greatly improved mental healthcare

De-stigmatizing mental illness. Opening more mental institutions and allowing for involuntary admittance in certain circumstances. Increasing general funding for mental healthcare and more psychological screening prior to gun purchase.

Gun Acquisition

The psychological screening falls into this category as well, but a lot of it is also acting on red flags and temporary seizure of weapons in cases of obvious threat as seen in Parkland.

Family values/community involvement

This is a cultural issue that leads to a lot of things, not just gun violence. It is far too complex to detail how this is fixed, but to suggest it isn't a problem is dishonest.

Bullying

Remove zero tolerance policies and other such things that allow schools to not ever actually have to do anything about bullying issues. This also ties into family values and community involvement.

If YOUR solution is repeal the second amendment, then that is untenable and you're stupid for supporting it.

If that isn't your solution, then addressing any or all of the above is a good way to fixing the problem in the long run.

I may even be unclear on what exactly your idea for a solution is?

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I am not dismissing any potential solutions at all (other than a gun ban).

When the issue is gun violence going "I dont oppose anything except bans and non instant solutions" is opposing close to everything

@UnfairRepresent Where do you keep getting this idea that I oppose non-instant solutions? Really what the fuck are you talking about? Are you trolling?

I fully support long term solutions. I have said over and over and fucking over that I do. Greatly improved mental healthcare, reformed processes by which people obtain guns, reinstallation of family values and community involvement, addressing school bullying, creating greater transparency between all authoritative bodies that have to approve the ownership of a gun for an individual, etc.

I support all those things, all of which are non-instant solutions. So really, what the fuck are you even talking about?

This was already addressed in the other topic about it.

Unless there is a very specific definition of what constitutes a Neo-nazi stated in the resolution and an enforceable standard with which to adhere to, it is good that this resolution isn't passing.

It is only worded the way headlines word it so leftists can say "see! neo-nazi sympathizers!"

Neo-nazis should be fucked to death and burn in hell, but when you have leftists labelling people Neo-nazis because they don't agree with them that is an issue.

The definition would have to be greatly modified from the overly broad one that is casually used now. If that happens, great, pass it. Until then, absolutely not.

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Bruh.... did you even read the rest of that post that you're cutting off?

Yes

Then you are really dropping the ball on reading comprehension. I am not dismissing any potential solutions at all (other than a gun ban).

"There are no short term solutions. Any truly effective solution is going to be a long and multi-faceted process. There are, however, short term measures that can be taken to limit casualties in the meantime while long term solutions are being developed and given a chance to take hold."

Long term solutions should absolutely be pursued, but because they cannot be immediately effective (again, this doesn't mean they should be ignored/abandoned), short-term measures are necessary to protect people in the meantime.

I really can't see how you're not getting this...

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

People like me? What are you talking about @UnfairRepresent?

People who dismiss potential solutions with the argument of "That would not be instant! In the meantime innocents will die!"

Which is true of every single solution. It's a nonsense counter

Bruh.... did you even read the rest of that post that you're cutting off?

UnfairRepresent posted...

_RETS_ posted...

tail-tucking fuckassery.

Well if you're gonna tuck your tail anyway.....

Well yeah it's a when-in-rome kinda thing. I forgive you btw, for your statement in the other topic @UnfairRepresent

BJ-blazkowics posted...

The Admiral posted...

BJ-blazkowics posted...

Please refer to post 132. The first part of such video explains what the alt right is and what are some of its main characteristics.

Why do you need me to watch a 7-minute YouTube instead of you just answering the question? That's a complete deflection. Are you, yourself, able to articulate the definition in text or aren't you? Very simple. If you don't understand that term well enough to define it, you can just admit this. Fifth time asking you now.

Dear fellow poster,

You are in quite an emotional state right now. You are so emotional you went back and edited your own post 2 times. Below you can find a comparison of each of the three versions:

Current version:

The Admiral 1 minute ago

Why do you need me to watch a 7-minute YouTube instead of you just answering the question? That's a complete deflection. Are you, yourself, able to articulate the definition in text or aren't you? Very simple. If you don't understand that term well enough to define it, you can just admit this. Fifth time asking you now.
- The Admiral

Previous Versions


The Admiral 2 minutes ago
Why do you need me to watch a 7-minute YouTube instead of you just answering the question? That's a complete deflection. Are you, yourself, able to articulate the definition in text or aren't you? Very simple. Fifth time asking you now.

The Admiral 2 minutes ago

Why do you need me to watch a 7-minute YouTube instead of you just answering the question? That's a complete deflection. Are you, yourself, able to articulate the definition in text or aren't you? Very simple. If you don;'t understand that word well enough to do so, you can just admit this. Fifth time asking you now.

You are obviously distressed. I am sorry I affected you so much emotionally with my replies in today's topic, even though I am not sure why I made so you emotional, I was not even addressing you.

No message posted in a message board should agitate you so much as to post 3 different versions of the same post in under 2 minutes.

As per my previous message, since you won't even watch a short video that contains the definition of what I consider alt-right, and since you are getting more emotional and agitated instead of less, I deem our interaction in this topic as finished.

What an incredible display of deflection and then tail-tucking fuckassery.

gbpxl posted...

would rather it be where he wasnt able to buy the gun to begin with

That isn't the question you unbelievable hack. Since you know that bad guys DO currently have guns, if one came into your room tonight would you rather have a gun to defend yourself or any of the shit you mentioned? It is a very straight forward question with TWO possible answers, not a third answer to a question no one asked.

gbpxl posted...

im not mad. Im making a point that one doesnt need a tool that causes instant death in order to be safe

answer my question

gbpxl posted...

this country is already being ruined by people like you who think guns are the only weapons one can use to defend himself. Ever hear of boxing? Karate? Knives? Crossbows? Mace? Baseball bat?

If a guy with a gun was going to come into your bedroom tomorrow, would you rather have a gun or one of the above means of self defense?

If you answer anything other than "a gun" then you are openly admitting to being either a troll or a stupid ass and either way you lose.

Mackorov posted...

BlueJester007 posted...

Mackorov posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

We do give immigrants a chance to come here. However everyone needs to start on the right step which is to follow the proper immigration procedures. It would be unfair for those who went through the proper process if a certain group was given special privileges to cut to the front of the line.

illegal or legal? what does it f****ing matter? Are illegals vicious criminals or something posing a threat to your great nation?

They are breaking the law, hence the term illegal.

tell me in practical terms here. They've been staying peacefully for 15 years and contribute to the economy.
Yet your POTUS would rather waste time and resources capturing these 'illegal aliens' who arent even being a detriment to your country at all, in fact, the opposite.

All because why?
Because they're considering 'illegals'.

and people wonder why the US is the laughing stock of the world now

What 1st world countries allow illegal immigrants to just stay in their country? Which ones let non citizens come and go unobstructed?