Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - Reject the politics of healthy eating [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/977294340736323584

i was going to bash you for linking to a stefan molyneux tweet but this is one of the rare instances when he's actually right. huh.

i like how you can still easily look up the video where he was fucking singing the star-spangled banner when trump won the election, though. or the videos in which he was passionately defending trump against right-wing pundits who were already calling out trump on his bullshit early on in his presidency. does molyneux really think we don't remember that shit? i'm sure his army of fanboys doesn't (or they block it from their memory because of cognitive dissonance), but...
---

https://twitter.com/ProudBoysUSA/status/978006037520420864

basically correct
---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/ProudBoysUSA/status/978006037520420864

basically correct

is this saying that extremely pro-gun voters are the silent majority or that gun owners will rise up and kill everyone if the 2nd amendment is challenged? i honestly can't tell
---

gun owners will rise up and kill everyone if the 2nd amendment is challenged?

It's saying that gun-owners are far more radical in their beliefs than the NRA is.

And while they won't pro-actively kill people for disagreement, many will, in fact, kill people who try to forcibly disarm them.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It's saying that gun-owners are far more radical in their beliefs than the NRA is.

This is kind of the chicken/egg argument, because either the NRA is a reflection of gun owners or gun owners have turned the NRA into what it is today.

There's really no difference between the two anymore.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

gun owners will rise up and kill everyone if the 2nd amendment is challenged?

It's saying that gun-owners are far more radical in their beliefs than the NRA is.

And while they won't pro-actively kill people for disagreement, many will, in fact, kill people who try to forcibly disarm them.

And the NRA wouldnt? Thats exactly the image they sell constantly
---

SmartMuffin posted...

gun owners will rise up and kill everyone if the 2nd amendment is challenged?

It's saying that gun-owners are far more radical in their beliefs than the NRA is.

And while they won't pro-actively kill people for disagreement, many will, in fact, kill people who try to forcibly disarm them.

Oh, the size of the flood made me think it was something I was supposed to be worried about. But if these guys wanna fight cops for some reason, whatever.
---

Man, if gun laws are passed and "responsible" gun owners decided the solution is to murder people, how's that gonna make people more sympathetic to their cause? If anything, it's gonna push people on the fence in favor of more gun control.
---

This is kind of the chicken/egg argument, because either the NRA is a reflection of gun owners or gun owners have turned the NRA into what it is today.

The NRA is the organization for gun owners who still want to get invited to fancy cocktail parties hosted by people with approved opinions. Doing this whole "the NRA is a terrorist organization!" thing might persuade some of them to denounce gun ownership entirely. More likely it will push them into the far more radical and less apologetic gun ownership groups. Or just lone wolves who DGAF.

Man, if gun laws are passed and "responsible" gun owners decided the solution is to murder people, how's that gonna make people more sympathetic to their cause? If anything, it's gonna push people on the fence in favor of more gun control.

If gun confiscation starts happening in America, the time for political virtue signaling is over. Armed revolution would be the proper response. The concern becomes less "how does this make me look politically" and more "how many agents of the state can I take with me when they come to kill me"
---

SmartMuffin posted...

If gun confiscation starts happening in America, the time for political virtue signaling is over. Armed revolution would be the proper response. The concern becomes less "how does this make me look politically" and more "how many agents of the state can I take with me when they come to kill me"

The ratio is most definitely gonna favor the government.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

This is kind of the chicken/egg argument, because either the NRA is a reflection of gun owners or gun owners have turned the NRA into what it is today.

The NRA is a federal political body, and as such it has very little relation to any group of actual humans.

That being said they do sell a very popular story, but that just means they are good politicians.
---

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/978042136787603456

Here's some loving children calling for the death of the President's son.

"How it looks in the media" doesn't matter, because the media is already 100% in the tank for the left. Signs like this have been entirely ignored from mainstream reporting.
---

You can always cherry pick whatever for your media spin. To choose to take the blatant hand wringing route is pretty sad.

But you can justify anything because at least you're not "them".
---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/978042136787603456

Here's some loving children calling for the death of the President's son.

Or it's more like "I'm sure Trump would have the exact same feelings about guns if his son was at the Parkland shooting."
---

foolm0r0n posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

This is kind of the chicken/egg argument, because either the NRA is a reflection of gun owners or gun owners have turned the NRA into what it is today.

The NRA is a federal political body, and as such it has very little relation to any group of actual humans.

That being said they do sell a very popular story, but that just means they are good politicians.

The NRA is pretty much a giant infomercial for guns.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

If gun confiscation starts happening in America, the time for political virtue signaling is over. Armed revolution would be the proper response. The concern becomes less "how does this make me look politically" and more "how many agents of the state can I take with me when they come to kill me"

If people already tolerate having their land and money confiscated, what makes you think they won't tolerate gun confiscation as well?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Or it's more like "I'm sure Trump would have the exact same feelings about guns if his son was at the Parkland shooting."

Seriously overestimates Trump's capacity for empathy tho
---

As a someone who grew up in a very pro NRA household, I can say that the NRA has become FAR more radical than it was in the 80's and 90's.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/978042136787603456

Here's some loving children calling for the death of the President's son.

Or it's more like "I'm sure Trump would have the exact same feelings about guns if his son was at the Parkland shooting."

How does the shooting target shaped like a boy relate to that interpretation, exactly?
---

Kenri posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

If gun confiscation starts happening in America, the time for political virtue signaling is over. Armed revolution would be the proper response. The concern becomes less "how does this make me look politically" and more "how many agents of the state can I take with me when they come to kill me"

If people already tolerate having their land and money confiscated, what makes you think they won't tolerate gun confiscation as well?

Thats an interesting question for Muffin
---

SmartMuffin posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/978042136787603456

Here's some loving children calling for the death of the President's son.

Or it's more like "I'm sure Trump would have the exact same feelings about guns if his son was at the Parkland shooting."

How does the shooting target shaped like a boy relate to that interpretation, exactly?

Because he'd be a human target like everyone else that day.
---

I definitely see it like a trap

It sounds and looks like an awful threat

But to see it as a threat, you have to admit that children are not safe at school
---

Thats an interesting question for Muffin

It's a fair point. I'm presuming a scenario where they order mass civilian gun confiscation without any significant amendments to the constitution. The income tax was a lawfully passed amendment. Land isn't taken without compensation (even if the "fair" aspect is often a joke).

Taxation is also withheld in ways that make it seem far less painful and that limit confrontation. If the tax man had to show up at your door and demand you hand over X amount of money, you'd probably see a lot more dead (or at least tarred and feathered) tax collectors, you know, like you did back when they actually did that.
---

But to see it as a threat, you have to admit that children are not safe at school

Of course schools aren't safe.

No one is safe anywhere. Of course, the least safe places to be are places run by the government where everyone is disarmed. Seems like few school shootings happen at private or charter schools. Or Sunday schools.
Or home-schools for that matter!
---

It's notable that IRS offices are built with physical security measures that rival military installations.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Land isn't taken without compensation (even if the "fair" aspect is often a joke).

I imagine any future gun confiscation would be similar

Tax breaks for your gun surrender!
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Or Sunday schools.

Churches get shot up fairly frequently.
---

Every gun you turn in buys you an extra vote

Take that liberals!
---

Gun ownership holds a special value that goes far beyond the market value of the guns themselves.

Also, when the government takes your land, you can use the money they give you to buy land elsewhere. The government isn't telling you, "we're going to foricibly buy this land from you, and now you aren't allowed to own land anymore."
---

redrocket_pub posted...

The government isn't telling you, "we're going to foricibly buy this land from you, and now you aren't allowed to own land anymore."

Well, not anymore anyway
---

SmartMuffin posted...

No one is safe anywhere. Of course, the least safe places to be are places run by the government where everyone is disarmed. Seems like few school shootings happen at private or charter schools. Or Sunday schools.
Or home-schools for that matter!

I mean, there are constant mass shootings in all of those places in the US. If the point here is that public schools aren't uniquely unsafe, then... yes.

SmartMuffin posted...

It's a fair point. I'm presuming a scenario where they order mass civilian gun confiscation without any significant amendments to the constitution. The income tax was a lawfully passed amendment. Land isn't taken without compensation (even if the "fair" aspect is often a joke).

Taxation is also withheld in ways that make it seem far less painful and that limit confrontation. If the tax man had to show up at your door and demand you hand over X amount of money, you'd probably see a lot more dead (or at least tarred and feathered) tax collectors, you know, like you did back when they actually did that.

If gun confiscation ever happens in the US, expect them to use exactly these same tricks to make it look legal/non-confrontational.
---

Theres a strange appeal to me to just stopping all gun production and just letting all the current ones slowly die out
---

You have to turn in your guns, but you get kill one person consequence free.

I bet a lot of people would go for it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I imagine any future gun confiscation would be similar

Tax breaks for your gun surrender!

That's what they did in the australian gun buyback
---

redrocket_pub posted...

The government isn't telling you, "we're going to foricibly buy this land from you, and now you aren't allowed to own land anymore."

That is literally exactly what they do and have been doing for centuries to grow their land
---

TheRock1525 posted...

You have to turn in your guns, but you get kill one person consequence free.

I bet a lot of people would go for it.

Nobody who's rich and white though because they don't get anything out of it.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

The government isn't telling you, "we're going to foricibly buy this land from you, and now you aren't allowed to own land anymore."

That is literally exactly what they do and have been doing for centuries to grow their land

What.

Who exactly is not allowed to own land?
---

redrocket_pub posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

The government isn't telling you, "we're going to foricibly buy this land from you, and now you aren't allowed to own land anymore."

That is literally exactly what they do and have been doing for centuries to grow their land

What.

Who exactly is not allowed to own land?

Anyone that doesn't pay taxes on it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Theres a strange appeal to me to just stopping all gun production and just letting all the current ones slowly die out

It was a hot topic a while ago but it seems to have been forgotten, this little notion that producing a gun is not quite centralized anymore

To remove guns from the US, you must remove all demand for guns. There is absolutely no other way. This applies to all other countries as well who have done various forms of gun control and buybacks.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Who exactly is not allowed to own land?

Native americans and black people and such back in the day. Felons also I think? Nowadays there's a good bit of gating done with property taxes too.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Theres a strange appeal to me to just stopping all gun production and just letting all the current ones slowly die out

It was a hot topic a while ago but it seems to have been forgotten, this little notion that producing a gun is not quite centralized anymore

To remove guns from the US, you must remove all demand for guns. There is absolutely no other way. This applies to all other countries as well who have done various forms of gun control and buybacks.

Hypnotherapy for every Trump SotU!
---

Guns cant climb over The Wall
---

Just let all the gun owners have one big game of Fortnite IRL, winner is the only person allowed to have guns
---

foolm0r0n posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

Who exactly is not allowed to own land?

Native americans and black people and such back in the day. Felons also I think? Nowadays there's a good bit of gating done with property taxes too.

None of that except property tax is a relevant analogy to gun confiscation in present day America. Property tax is an interesting argument but is in no way comparable to an absolute ban on land ownership.
---

The funny thing is, gun-enthusiast citizens probably outnumber government agents at least 20:1.

So we don't even have to take out one person for each one of us who dies. Basically, just 1/20th of one. And that's assuming every government agent supports the gun ban and doesn't defect to our side.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

None of that except property tax is a relevant analogy to gun confiscstion in present day America. Property tax is an intresting argument but is in no way comparable to an absolute ban on land ownership.

I wasn't trying for it to be. All I'm saying is that the US has a lot of experience with using "legal" "consensual" means of forcing people. It's not stacking people up on a train but it doesn't have to be.
---

Are you counting the military as government agents?
---

Spoilers: the military is very pro gun ownership/Second Amendment.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Are you counting the military as government agents?

Yes. Military and police. I'm not counting IRS attorneys or toll booth collectors or DMV people or whatever. People who might conceivably be issued a gun as part of their job.
---

If I'm remembering right, Australia did a gun buyback program and saw a fairly sharp reduction in gun suicides and homicides. Might not work as well in the states, but it certainly seems worth considering at least.
---