Current Events > Trump administration is fucking up its totalitarian playbook by not banning guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordRazziel posted...

How is it totalitarian to not ban guns?

I think you misread what was stated.
---

bump
---

lying and implying TC
---

I Like Toast posted...

Hodor

---

C_Pain posted...

lying and implying TC

I didn't lie about anything.
---

That's because Trump isn't a dictator , he actually cares about the rights of the people.
---

Guys, stop picking on Joey. he's a Trumper, he doesn't know better.
---

Howl posted...

That's because Trump isn't a dictator , he actually cares about the rights of the people.

He does not care about the rights of the people.
---

Howl posted...

he actually cares about the rights of the people.

Source?
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Howl posted...

he actually cares about the rights of the people.

Source?

---

Drasilor posted...

Kineth posted...

Drasilor posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Lol what a fucking moronic topic. Kineth has dialed the shit posting up to 11

If it's such a dumb topic, what does it say for those who got their asses chapped by it?

Liberals think stating facts mean getting butt hurt.....what a time we live in.

So I'm a libertarian and all you two did was state an opinion. You know that opinions and facts aren't the same thing, right? Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't, honestly.
---

Yeah, I'm bumping it. Deal with it.
---

The premise of this topic is flawed. Authoritarianism doesn't live or die with gun bans.
---

So, if I suggested a law banning all swords, how would you react? I tell you that swords are dangerous and you respond that everyone has the right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.

Yeah, exactly. Nothing you can buy in a store is going to stop a sniper bullet, or a tank, or a drone. I'm not sure why people think that a group of drunken hicks forming a 'militia' is going to actually be able to defend itself from armed, trained troops with the most advanced weapons on the planet.

Even if they could put up a fight, they also control all the infrastructure. Let's say California rebels. The government just cuts of all food and medicine. They cut off all power and trade. You think that a militia of guys with assault rifles running around in the dark without food or medicine can hold off one of the most advanced militarizes in the world?

I feel like the last 2 posts missed the point.
---

Kineth posted...

I feel like the last 2 posts missed the point.

The point being you attempting to rile up the conservatrolls of the board?
---

No, that wasn't the point that I think those posts missed.
---

Well if you're not interested in any sort of actual exchange I guess it makes sense to keep us guessing instead of elaborating.
You really have devolved, I guess the whole "enjoying the fallout of the shooting" thing wasn't an isolated shitpost.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Well if you're not interested in any sort of actual exchange I guess it makes sense to keep us guessing instead of elaborating.
You really have devolved, I guess the whole "enjoying the fallout of the shooting" thing wasn't an isolated shitpost.

Are you actually interested in talking about it, cause I will.
---

Kineth posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Well if you're not interested in any sort of actual exchange I guess it makes sense to keep us guessing instead of elaborating.
You really have devolved, I guess the whole "enjoying the fallout of the shooting" thing wasn't an isolated shitpost.

Are you actually interested in talking about it, cause I will.

I was, yeah. I'm even on your side of the opinion spectrum, but I'm not really convinced that you're trying to do anything more than shitposting at this point.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Kineth posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Well if you're not interested in any sort of actual exchange I guess it makes sense to keep us guessing instead of elaborating.
You really have devolved, I guess the whole "enjoying the fallout of the shooting" thing wasn't an isolated shitpost.

Are you actually interested in talking about it, cause I will.

I was, yeah. I'm even on your side of the opinion spectrum, but I'm not really convinced that you're trying to do anything more than shitposting at this point.

I honestly wasn't really participating in the topic, still, the 2 posts of our interaction that got you label it shitposting are just so clearly not what that word entails. That's why I'm reluctant to hold a conversation. If you're just ready to sling insults, why should I fucking engage in discourse? You didn't set the table right and you want me to eat this slop?

So let's try again. What is it that you want to talk about.
---

Kineth posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Howl posted...

he actually cares about the rights of the people.

Source?

---

Dash_Harber posted...

So, if I suggested a law banning all swords, how would you react? I tell you that swords are dangerous and you respond that everyone has the right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.

Yeah, exactly. Nothing you can buy in a store is going to stop a sniper bullet, or a tank, or a drone. I'm not sure why people think that a group of drunken hicks forming a 'militia' is going to actually be able to defend itself from armed, trained troops with the most advanced weapons on the planet.

Even if they could put up a fight, they also control all the infrastructure. Let's say California rebels. The government just cuts of all food and medicine. They cut off all power and trade. You think that a militia of guys with assault rifles running around in the dark without food or medicine can hold off one of the most advanced militarizes in the world?

The military would fall apart into pockets of resistance fighters. Guerrilla warfare is highly effective btw. Armed citizens would definitely stand a chance. And armed citizenry is what keeps us from even getting to that depravity.
---

Kick all of the Mexicans out, build a wall....that leaves Blacks/muslim/poor trapped inside with the mentally ill white men who will systematically massacre them in churches/grade schools or lay down the rape on the ladies who are trying to make it in show biz. Trump is on some Ras Al Gul madness...

Kineth posted...

So let's try again. What is it that you want to talk about.

Nothing anymore. You'll notice I used the past tense. Carry on
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The military would fall apart into pockets of resistance fighters. Guerrilla warfare is highly effective btw. Armed citizens would definitely stand a chance. And armed citizenry is what keeps us from even getting to that depravity.

In a situation where the government is being tyrannical, you think that he army would fall apart into resistance fighters? Based on what? All the examples we have throughout history where iron-fisted dictators began to tighten their control and the exact opposite happened?

The situation we are talking about is how some people believe that citizens armed with the weapons they can buy at the store would somehow be able to fight off one of the most advanced military forces on the planet at the point where they rebelled against the tyrannical government. I don't understand why the army being deployed to deal with a situation they were formed to deal with would cause them to instantly fall apart.

scar the 1 posted...

Kineth posted...

So let's try again. What is it that you want to talk about.

Nothing anymore. You'll notice I used the past tense. Carry on

Well, ok then.

In regards to your post here.

scar the 1 posted...

The premise of this topic is flawed. Authoritarianism doesn't live or die with gun bans.

I never said that authoritarianism lives or dies on gun bans. Authoritarianism does many things and disarming the population is generally a step toward totalitarianism. On top of that, with the amount of times that people, who seemingly idolize Trump, claim that liberals/SJWs/Leftists/etc. are out to get their guns and then start claiming that liberalism seeks to oppress them in this instance. They're pretty related, but a gun ban is more of a symptom, than a cause.

As an aside, I still don't get what the definition of shitposting is, though it seems to be the same thing as with SJWs. "Posts/people I don't like." Regardless, you're right at some level. I was getting a chuckle from the topic post, but I wasn't when I was responding to you.
---

What I referred to when I said shitposting was specifically your flippant attitude in your response to me, since it indicated that your intentions were only to sit around and be smug instead of explaining what I obviously didn't catch in your OP.
---

*shrug* That is true. The accusation of simply trolling definitely incentivized my divestment from the dialogue. Regardless, you wanna respond to the rest of that post since that's all in the past?
---

Trump is an oligarch not a wannabe dictator.
---

Kineth posted...

Regardless, you wanna respond to the rest of that post since that's all in the past?

Makes sense. My point though is that I don't really think there's a that narrowly defined "authoritarian playbook", since you always have to adapt it to the current state of things. Can it be argued that Trump is fascist/authoritarian? Yes. Is him not going hard for guns a good argument against that? Not really in my opinion. It would severely undermine his populism, even.
---