Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Guns are not a part of the culture of my homeland, except perhaps for the occasional Bollywood movie in which the bad guy meets his demise staring down the wrong end of a barrel.
My childhood in India was steeped in ahimsa, the tenet of nonviolence toward all living things.
The Indians may have succeeded in ousting the British, but we won with Gandhian-style civil disobedience, not a revolutionary war.
I grew up not knowing a single gun owner, and even today India has one of the strictest gun laws on the planet. Few Indians buy and keep firearms at home, and gun violence is nowhere near the problem it is in the United States. An American is 12 times more likely than an Indian to be killed by a firearm, according to a recent study.
It's no wonder then that every time I visit India, my friends and family want to know more about America's "love affair" with guns.
I get the same questions when I visit my brother in Canada or on my business travels to other countries, where many people remain perplexed, maybe even downright mystified, by Americans' defense of gun rights.
I admit I do not fully understand it myself, despite having become an American citizen nearly a decade ago. So when I learn the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention here in Atlanta, right next to the CNN Center, I decide to go and find out more.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/world/indian-immigrant-nra-convention/index.html
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:02AM (16 children)
Wouldn't it be nice if all Americans could be arsed to keep a mind open enough to try and understand the other side like this? I mean her mind may or may not be changed but at least she sees the other side of the debate as human beings who could possibly know something she doesn't. Very well done piece.
In before someone calls bullshit irony. I do listen and attempt to understand other people's positions. It's only after doing so that I feel justified in calling them fucking morons. There are plenty of people I don't think are morons, just wrong. It's just not really worth bringing up in those cases; they're perfectly within their rights to be wrong as long as they're not wrongly trying to infringe on my rights.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:44PM (2 children)
Sorry mighty bud, that article is one big subtweet about american gun derangement.
It is dripping with sarcastic dogwhistles that right wingers can't hear because to them everything she says is considered totally normal.
Few people here look like me. Most appear to be white and male. Many view the media, including my employer, with disdain -- and they do not hesitate to let me know.
Yes, a wine club for the almost 5 million members of the organization.
Brickell "Brooke" Clark, otherwise known as the American Gun Chic. She has a website by that name and also a YouTube channel. Both are bathed in hues of pink and dedicated to her recently formed passion for guns.
"I own 10 guns. I have a 14-year-old son. I started teaching him to shoot when he was 5.
In a way, I understand her position. My first real exposure to guns came after I embedded with the US Army and Marines to report the Iraq War.
... What if I were the last one alive? How would I save myself?
I grew up in a city that now brims with some 16 million people on a working day. Firing guns in my grandfather's garden would not have been a good thing.
"How many guns do you own?" I ask.
"Not enough," he replies.
"You idiots," Adams says, referring to all people of color.
She wants to protect her family, but she is tired of the eternal violence plaguing her land. She wishes now that every gun would disappear from Iraq.
And those are only the most obvious examples.
She compares being a soldier at war to living in an upscale city suburb and doesn't have to say its ridiculous to think they are at all equivalent.
Her mention of british colonialism of india was masterful. All indians know Gandhi's non-violence was the strategy that made india free, not fighting.
Similarly when the white guy says gun control was about repressing blacks, she doesn't have to mention that civil rights legislation was accomplished not by force but by Dr King's strategy of non-violence.
Once again the elitist liberal press mocks and disrespects conservatives. She was just too cowardly to laugh in your face, instead snickering in a safe-space that most conservatives don't even realize exists.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:31PM (1 child)
You:
Article:
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:46PM
His genes may be mixed.
But when he starts talking about pocs as "you" rather than "we" its clear he's fully adopted white culture.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:47PM (11 children)
... especially when the immigrants come from countries like India, where there is an entirely different, diametrically opposing world view on matters such as the Second Amendment.
The governments of the United States are founded on the principle that there must be checks and balances between the powers; one of those checks and balances is the right of The People to keep and bear arms—the governments only exist as long as The People choose not to overthrown them with yet another violent revolution (and, no, it's not worthless in the face of a modern military; most military men would side with The People, and the military has proved over the last decade that it cannot fight well against guerrilla militias).
The more third-world people invited to the United States, the less this understanding of checks and balances will be respected; slowly but surely, the shifting population will vote to transfer ever more power from the individual to the State.
Blech!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:57PM (9 children)
I can't think of anything more un-american than to say american principles aren't good enough to convince anyone else of their value and correctness.
I think us real americans need to kick your traitorous ass out of the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:21PM (7 children)
It is simply a fact that principles are enforced by people who appreciate those principles—if you change The People, then you change the principles.
There's a reason that the third world struggles to implement even the most basic ideas of a Jeffersonian representative democracy; the institutions of such a government have more-or-less worked in the United States not because the principles are inherently workable, but rather because The People appreciate those principles.
NEWS FLASH: The United States Government wasn't created by Indians.
When humanity finally achieves civilization, there won't be a government. How is that for "un-American"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:49PM
Again you proclaim that you have no faith in the inherent superiority of american principles.
If that's true, then we should welcome better ones.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:04PM (3 children)
I'm sorry, but humans need governments to exist peaceably in dense populations. Actually, even to exist peaceably in sparse populations, but in sparse populations encounters are less frequent, so government is less important. But do note that the murder rate among the Kalahari bushmen was found to be higher than the rate in the Detroit slums. (I'm not the one who picked out Detroit, it was in the original article I read.)
OTOH, the above cited figure isn't quite correct, as the "civilized" murder rate doesn't include those killed in war or by other governmental actions. There may be other problems with it.
People change their nature quite slowly, but the environment within which that nature manifests itself changes rapidly. So I don't expect people to become inherently peaceful, but hope that environmental changes will cause them to react peacefully. Of course, peace can come at too high a price, but as various technologies become more powerful we will eventually find the alternatives of peacefullness or extinction. We're actually already at that point, but currently it's only the large groups (powerful nations) that can unleash extinction. This is in the process of changing. It's is actually probable at this point in time that a medium sized country or a major corporation could unleash extinction on humanity if it really worked at it for a decade. Most of them, though, find other goals more enticing. But as the technologies become more powerful, smaller groups will have the ability to use them.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)
WRONG
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:44PM
Well, you convinced me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:13AM
government is the biggest killer of humanity yet you claim it would be worse without them. you're a slave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:17PM (1 child)
When humanity finally becomes angels, there won't be a government.
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @09:52AM
Then why do we have human government? Your argument is nonsequitur: "humans are not angels, so we need government ruled by humans".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @11:57PM
I can't think of anything more un-american than to say american principles aren't good enough to convince anyone else of their value and correctness.
The obvious rebuttal here is the fact that those other parts of the world aren't already embracing better practices. That's a strong indication that American principles can be much better and still not be good enough to convince someone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:10AM
the truth is flamebait!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @05:12PM
Hahahahahahjaha yaaaaaa
You, open minded... Of COURSE this is a statement made in a story where someone is trying to come closer to your perspective. Your such a fucking douche.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:07AM (45 children)
Well she isn't AT the NRA or in any way involved with the NRA. She, a reporter from CNN, went to a NRA-convention/Gun-show. I'm still not sure what the point of the article is. What did they hope to get out of sending a pacifist into a gun show, it's like sending a vegetarian to an all-meat-BBQ-fest.
"I've never had the desire to own a gun. I try hard to experience the excitement of others who are admiring these products."
"Few people here look like me. Most appear to be white and male. Many view the media, including my employer, with disdain -- and they do not hesitate to let me know."
I wonder why ... Could it be cause her news organization hates guns and white males (that voted for Trump)?
I begin with this question: "Why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being?""
... and she wonders why they don't like her? It's like walking up to Indian people and ask why they like throwing acid in the face of women.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:11PM (6 children)
FORGET about any gun connection in relation to VALIDLY hating on the mainstream media: ANYONE with two brain cells to rub together 'hates' the shitty Big (Korporate) Media, doesn't matter which side of the political fence you are falling towards... again, has almost nothing to do with guns per se -although your point of the hysterical media coverage and ultra-PCness is certainly another factor- simply the awful job Big Media does across the board is enough to 'hate' them and all their clueless eee-vil minions...
also, gandhi/the indian mass civil disobedience campaign didn't succeed (or did it?) BECAUSE it was non-violent (or was it? seems like plenty of folks got their heads cracked open by state goons, if that isn't violence, i don't know what is... ), it succeeded because The State thought 'what if these unclean untouchables pick up a rock and a stick ?'; THAT is what made it succeed: THE IMPLIED THREAT OF VIOLENCE...
EVERY single participant in the non-violent movement could have been pure of heart and stalwart as jesus; but The State would STILL see the movement as a potential threat BECAUSE of the implied threat of violence/coup, NOT BECAUSE they were non-violent, they were only fooling themselves in that regard...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:30PM (4 children)
> or was it? seems like plenty of folks got their heads cracked open by state goons, if that isn't violence, i don't know what is... ),
Yeah getting beat on by the state proves Gandhi was conducting a violent revolution.
When you say such utterly ridiculous things all you do is signal to everyone that you are short too many marbles to be taken seriously.
> EVERY single participant in the non-violent movement could have been pure of heart and stalwart as jesus; but The State would STILL see the movement as a potential threat BECAUSE of the implied threat of violence/coup,
No. That's a trumpist "hard power is the only power" worldview and not only is it reductive its mostly wrong.
Soft power is far more important than hard power. It just isn't anywhere near as splashy because nobody gets blown up.
The only reason the Brits were in India was money.
It dosen't take a violent coup to make occupation unprofitable.
It just takes non-cooperation by both the people doing the work for the occupiers and by their customers.
In the history of the world there are very few examples of a repressive regime being taken by force and then replaced by a non-repressive government.
Only WWII and the american revolution come to mind and it wasn't the war but rather the substantial investment in institution building afterwards that made those examples work.
Nearly all successes in making the world more liberal and more free were accomplished by negotiation and political pressure.
Not just india, but south africa, tunisia, the color revolutions from the phillipines, to serbia, to the ukraine, much of west africa, etc.
That's not to say that soft power guarantees success. There have been a lot of failures because revolution is difficult. Only that soft power has a much better record than hard power.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday May 05 2017, @12:41AM (1 child)
you are not paying attention, and are virtue signaling out your ass, save it for someone who cares about that idiotic, time-wasting bullshit...
i did NOT say their movement was violent because they had violence perpetrated upon them, YOU JUST MADE THAT SHIT UP... MY POINT WAS, the movement can be 100 % non-violent, yet there was still violence, wasnt there ? ? ?
that the violence was all on the part of the state doesnt negate there was still violence... you think that is meaningless; i would suggest those who were beaten or died are not quite as sanguine about it... pretty easy to be non-violent and all super-new-testament-jesusy when it is someone else taking the beating...
my other point stands in spite of your reliance on hopium kryptonite to save the day (one of these millennia), the state doesnt give a flying fuck all you mooing, pink cat-earred, latte-sipping, fake pwogwessives are weally, weally, hiwee pwincipled, and -like- totally non-violent...
the
state
doesnt
give
a
shit
they see a mass movement and equate it to a violent overthrow...
again, DOES NOT MATTER your pureness of intention, blah, blah, blah...
.
oh, and all those color 'revolutions' you point to, um, just WHAT is the status of these 'revolutions' ? ? ?
(the UKRAINE ? OUR little neo-nazi coup (krime against humanity), you have got to be fucking kidding me, boychik...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:10AM
holy shit, you are triggered as fuck!
I guess that is what happens when someone with a completely unrealistic world-view is faced with evidence that punctures their bubble
(Score: 2) by SacredSalt on Friday May 05 2017, @01:08AM (1 child)
I think I would take South Africa off of that list. The ANC is basically a terrorist organization that came to power after detonating around 40,000 car bombs and amassing large groups of people to murder others with gasoline, used tires, and pointy sticks.
I wouldn't say its "improved" either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:15AM
Actually the ANC is a perfect demonstration of the value of hard power versus soft power.
All of their terrorism failed to achieve their goals.
They only started to make progress after they gave that up.
Mandel made it clear that his time in prison caused him to re-evalute tactics and to conclude that non-violence was the best approach.
And history proved him correct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:45PM
This may be the reason as to why China is so "triggered" by Falun Gong?
They may decide to pick up stones an sticks..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:33PM (26 children)
oh, i wanted to add one other point to her generic comment often heard from ANTI-gun people along the lines of 'i just don't understand people's fascination with guns/weapons...'
i don't think they say this because they are neutral about guns/weapons, i don't think they say this because they genuinely don't understand people's motivation; i think they say this SIMPLY because it puts them on the 'right' side of this issue (so they think)... in short, i believe a person saying this is disingenuous out of the gate...
.
it is EASY to comprehend why some/many people in general, men in particular, and young men most especially are 'fascinated' by guns/weapons: our EXISTENCE TO THIS POINT IN HIS STORY AS A STUPID SPECIES WAS 100% DEPENDENT upon knowing weapons and how to use them... (one might argue that we are STILL so motivated in the context of the military, given the nature of the world...) EVERYONE is fascinated by technology, the denizens of soylent especially so; knives, swords, pistols, rifles, shotguns, cannons, bombs, fighter jets, etc, etc, etc, are all WAY COOL technology, REGARDLESS of their ultimate use/purpose... they are inherently interesting machines...
.
further, MUCH (most?) of the advances in ALL our technology throughout his story which gives these wimpy eloi the shiny Icrap they love so obsessively, was/is predicated on R&D for military/weapons, NOT from doodling peace signs in a lab notebook over and over...
go ahead, make a drum circle, weave dandelions in your hair, sing kumbaya (sp?), and om your chakra till the sacred cows come home ; you will be digging a hole with a stick for your next shit, if that is the cauldron of techno-innovation you are dependent upon...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:42PM (10 children)
oh, i wanted to add one other point to her generic comment often heard from ANTI-gun people along the lines of 'i just don't understand people's fascination with guns/weapons...'
If there is one trend that I've noticed among these sort of people is that they often have been lucky enough to never had to defend themselves against another violent person who was much stronger than themselves. Many change their mind amazingly quick and arm themselves after a single assault.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:08PM (4 children)
The sort of "violence" I've experienced is just not solvable with a gun. Yes, if you near a wilderness and need means to protect yourself from wild animals, then a gun (a rifle, not a pistol) can be a good idea. Animals aren't stupid, and the rest will get the idea after a few of them are shot. A refresher every once in a while maintains their education.
As for violence from your fellow humans, that's a lot harder to handle. Physical violence is just one avenue. The punk kid who runs around snatching purses, or tries to mug people, isn't going to last. I'm not counting on someone gunning him down, I'm counting on everyone and everything eventually catching up with him. He keeps doing it, and he will be recognized, his home will be found, and he will be caught.
I'm talking about government tyranny in the form of an unfair fine, and threats, bullying, and propaganda. The whole red light camera racket, what can you do about it when a local government mistimes a light and fines people $75 for missing it by a fraction of a second? Taking your gun to the next meeting of the city council and opening fire is so obviously a really bad idea on many different levels. Not least, it's severely disproportionate. How about school, in which a teacher takes a personal dislike to you or your kid, though you did nothing whatsoever to them, and hands out an F that is not justified? Quite a few teachers hate and envy smart kids, and will try to punish them for it, find any excuse no matter how stupid, to flunk them. Happened to me all too often, from grade school through college.
Then there are those who try to scare you with the idea that the government is on their side, when it isn't. Like, those big, scary law enforcement badges Hollywood puts at the start of just about every DVD, and debt collectors who tell you they're going to send the police to arrest you if you don't pay up. There, the brains to recognize an empty threat is a whole lot more useful than a gun. I've had businesses try to tell me bull that the rules say I have to pay them money, or that some fee for some extra is customary and necessary, the "everyone does it" argument, when it isn't. The parking meter ticket is another one you can often blow off, though that one is trickier, depends on whether those with an interest have succeeded in bribing government to put some teeth in enforcement. A guy who ran a pr0n store told that the police were always hauling his clerks off to jail on bogus, trumped up charges. They were usually released with no charges a few hours later.
Where in all that is there a use for a gun? The pr0n store manager was going to ask his clerks to resist arrest, fire warning shots at the police to tell them not to try it? Of course not. Or, later, was he going to hire a small private army and storm the police station to free his clerks at gunpoint? No way. Maybe he could go after the politicians who directed the police to crack down on pr0n? Also no good. They do it to score points with the social conservatives, and do it in the weeks before an election. So, shoot all the social conservatives? Ridiculous. Setting aside the immorality of the idea, no one could shoot more than a tiny fraction of them before being overwhelmed. Once the election is over, the harassment is quietly discontinued.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:01AM
In these cases a gun won't help you. Violence as an individual doesn't solve every problem.
Where it will help is the rapist, the crazy stalker, a guy hellbent on killing you. In rarer cases, government agents that want you dead, etc. None of that is every day shit for everyone but unfortunately it does happen. The unarmed end up on the news or in the stats. Even a level playing field doesn't guarantee outcome.
So you know, shoot to have fun and enjoy it. Its what 99% of guns are used for. Everything isn't life or death 100% of the time. You don't NEED free speech, your own car, the ability to run apps outside the Microsoft Store, electricity or pretty much anything besides food, water and shelter but I'll be damned if those other things aren't nice to have. It really sucks when some judgmental prick tries to take them away from you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:06AM (2 children)
Without endorsing any course of action, let's analyze your claim.
How is this situation any different in principle than:
Assuming an unquestioned right to the defense of your own life (regardless of success), you are the victim in both effectively identical scenarios. As the victim, any deaths of your attackers are on the heads of the attackers.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 05 2017, @07:10AM (1 child)
> Local government bureaucrats revoke your driver's license
That's the sticking point. They don't have the authority to do that. In fact, they have to wiggle a lot to slide the red light camera tickets past the law. Like there's the right to be confronted by your accuser. There's also the problem of identifying the driver. They hit the owner for the fine, never mind who was actually driving. So in Texas, the ticket doesn't count as a moving violation, it is only a violation of a city ordinance. It does not go on your driving record and it is not cause for auto insurers to raise your rates or for you to lose your driver's license. If you refuse to pay, they can report it as an unpaid debt, that's all. They usually bluster, hinting that you will be in Big Trouble if you don't pay. They can't cut off your water either.
What happened in the city where I live was a petition against red light cameras was put on the ballot and won by 70%. The incumbent mayor supported the cameras and he lost to a challenger who opposed them. The private company who ran the cameras sued to try to keep the measure off the ballot. They lost their lawsuit. They then tried their stock propaganda about red light cameras making driving safer. Didn't work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @07:34AM
You are correct, but you're intentionally avoiding the foundational point.
Maybe not in Texas, maybe not in the present, and maybe not only with red light camera tickets, but government agents which do exceed their delegated authority and assault you are literally criminals, and if one of their victims successfully kills some criminal attackers, the victim is justified.
If people don't like the idea of criminals getting killed, then the age-old advice applies: stop acting criminally!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:45PM (1 child)
> If there is one trend that I've noticed among these sort of people is that they often have been lucky enough to never had to defend themselves against another violent person who was much stronger than themselves. Many change their mind amazingly quick and arm themselves after a single assault.
Citation needed.
Can't say that I've met anyone that fits your premise. What I've seen are people that grew up with guns and feel the need to have one or more (often from a rural/farming background), and many (most) others that grew up without guns around the house and don't feel any need.
In my case, I shot a .22 at a summer camp a few times, didn't find it all that exciting. Went back to playing with other potentially dangerous machines like motorcycles and cars...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:10AM
The yuuuge difference you overlook is that People of the Gun are not trying to force you to use a gun, nor are they trying to steal your motorcycle or car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:52PM (1 child)
You mean, they turn into cowards who think they need an EDC? Sorry you were bullied, bro!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @09:11AM
So you want to disarm victims, I see...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:18AM
yeah, or they have paid security that does the dirty work of having guns for them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 04 2017, @01:43PM
"'i just don't understand people's fascination with . . ."
You may have the correct take on that phrase. Then again, there are things that I don't really get. I love motorcycles, for instance. I want a machine that at least qualifies as a 'cafe racer'. If a bike won't cruise at 100 mph, it's just not "good enough" for me. That makes it fairly obvious that I want a road legal bike, powerful, comfortable, something like a cruiser. I just don't understand these guys who feel the need to climb hillsides, just to get to the top. I don't understand those who do the mountain bike thing. That stuff just doesn't look like fun. I gotta respect all those characters who ride all the other kinds of bikes. Hey, we're all "up on two", we're almost like brothers, sorta, kinda. But, I'm just not going to bike the way they bike. Give me a few hundred miles of open road, and I'm happy. Dirt road, blacktop, concrete, a super slab, it's all the same. But, I want a ROAD of some sort!!
So, maybe, in this one case, you don't have quite the correct spin on the lady's statement. Maybe, she just doesn't understand, the same way I don't understand some of those crazy bastards who do weird shit on motorcycles.
At any rate, I was somewhat fascinated by Moni's article. Without being judgemental, she gave us a view into her mind. She seems to have given the whole thing a fair examination. Hell, let her experience percolate for awhile, and she may become an NRA spokesman sometime in the future. Or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:21PM (13 children)
A classic example of disagreement is the climate change debate. I'm strongly against strong global warming mitigation for a variety of reasons. But it is interesting how people repeatedly assume that means I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming at all. They can't even perceive that there's huge differences in opinion among the opposition and thus, don't have a clue about the basis for disagreement. I guess that's what happens when someone stumbles out of their echo chamber and runs into someone with a different opinion. All they've seen to this point are straw men.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:04PM (12 children)
While I think it wouldn't be that hard for them to understand others, it's cognitive dysfunction from their beliefs that keep them from understanding others.
Many of us do understand the ammosexuals! There has been a nasty sea-change amoungst the gun owners of the United States, most pointedly in the right-wing Republican take over of the NRA. We despise and worry about these crazies precisely because we understand just how crazy they are.
I see it all the time on SN.
You don't say, khallow! Who do you think is the most egregious case of this?
People will post their surprise, sincerely, that I can reason and use logic.
When did this happen, exactly? I am surprised you would say this! Just because you think you are reasonably using logic does not entail that you actually are.
But the difference was that I wasn't disagreeing with them on that subject. Sorry, it's the same person, folks. I didn't suddenly become irrational just because I disagreed with you on something.
True, that. You are irrational all the time! You are unable to recognize your fundamental assumptions, let alone critically evaluate them. So the obvious rebuttal, my dear khallow, is that yes, you are always irrational.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:18PM (7 children)
Sorry about this, but while your post is technically correct ... please note that ALL people are ALWAYS irrational, EXCEPT when they pay careful attention to logical steps...and often even then.
There are good reasons for this. Logic is slow, and takes a long time to work through, so people normally work on pattern matching, and from initial positions chosen in a non-logical manner...basically based on what you were exposed to when young.
THIS means that lots of different people will have different conclusions than you do when presented with the same evidence in any complex situation. And the conclusions are all "justifiable" from their normal thought processes.
WARNING: Even when one is reasoning carefully, and following precisely logical steps, the conclusions will still depend on the initial axioms, which are usually not known.
I generally presume that people are telling the truth as they see it unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise. It normally seems to work out well. So I believe that she really doesn't understand the fascination with guns. Of course, this is easy for me, because I don't understand it either, even though I can accept it. And I'm usually less worried about their fascination than with their actions, which aren't directly predictable from the fascination.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @07:06PM (6 children)
Rational/irrational are not binary states.
Some people are further disconnected from reality than others,
Khallow is regularly found wandering around in the weeds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @08:13PM (2 children)
So easy to sling stones from the safety of anonymity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @08:49PM (1 child)
What the parent says!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:46PM
Yo momma!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @06:00AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @05:15PM (1 child)
Obvious answer: yourself.
On the house ;)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06 2017, @10:48PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 04 2017, @10:10PM (1 child)
I think that you got the causation factor fuckingly mixed up.
It's the NRA who took over the... ummm... "right-wing republicans"**, for the simple reason that NRA has money to buy vot... errr.... contribute to the election campaign.
** "right-wing republicans"** - that sounds almost tautological, given that US lacks a "left wing" entirely.
From the perspective of other countries, your electoral choice seems to be between "reactionaries" (republicans) and "conservatives" (democrats)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:05PM
For decades the NRA used to be in favor of gun control. [salon.com]
That all changed after the civil rights era.
Same thing with abortion. Evangelicals used to be solidly in favor of abortion rights.
That also changed after the civil rights era.
Neither was a coincidence.
The former out of fear of meeting black people, the later because you could no longer officially use racism as a platform to unify the churches, so they needed a new cause to rally around.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @03:11AM (1 child)
You don't say, khallow! Who do you think is the most egregious case of this?
You're in there near the top of the list (only some really crazy people are ahead of you). But for the climate change example, sjames [soylentnews.org] was the latest to make that mistake. I see you gave [soylentnews.org] the concept a spin as well.
Personally, I'm looking forward to your final good bye. I'm sure it'll be quite stirring and just as much a shitting on philosophical thought as your usual fare.
One thing you've never respected is that reasoning takes time. At times, you've indicated a desire for good discourse, and then crapped on anyone (particularly me) who tried. I'm no longer playing the game.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday May 05 2017, @03:23AM
Don't go away, khallow! I enjoy our little talks.
and then crapped on anyone (particularly me) who tried. I'm no longer playing the game.
Don't quit, khallow, try harder! I will wait however long it takes for you to learn to reason!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:48PM (5 children)
It's articles like this that make me think we should require background checks, mental-health tests, and mandatory waiting periods for people aspiring to be a journalist.
You know, common-sense reform. Just to make sure the wrong people aren't going to be writing anything that might do harm or incite violence.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @01:56PM
Story needs a trigger warning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:20PM (3 children)
Most journalists need a four-year degree from a college or university. How much longer waiting period do you think aspiring journalists should have?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:29PM
Giving journalists a degree and calling that qualification is like giving out concealed carry licenses at the gun shop with any purchase over $50. Universities have zero incentive to produce journalists who want to tell the truth, which is why they almost never turn one out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @07:58PM (1 child)
Irrelevant. A four-year degree can be had in 2.5 years, and was probably the easiest coursework I've taken since middle-school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @10:09PM
OK, so it took you 2.5 years to go through a four-year degree program. Congratulations! But my question was concerning a "mandatory waiting period" for journalists to pursue their profession. Even at 2.5 years, how much more time do you think you would need before you could responsibly pursue your craft? A waiting period is about...waiting...not about what you do while you are waiting, whether it be easy or hard. So, how much more of a time of discernment do you think you would need after completing your degree?
(Score: 1) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:54PM (1 child)
a pacifist is someone who has some desire or aim not to kill. A gun can kill but it can be used for things not related to killing (i.e. target practice, sports, olympics). So the analogy to vegetarianism doesn't quit fit. It would only make sense if the NRA was devoted to killing, which I don't think it is. Even a pacifist can be a biathelete:
http://www.denverpost.com/2012/02/21/biathletes-caught-up-in-combo-of-cross-country-target-shooting/ [denverpost.com]
“I’m a pacifist and I was really opposed to guns before this, but I really enjoy the camaraderie and the atmosphere and the challenge,” said Elizabeth Pike, a 20-year club member from Boulder. “The challenge never ends. I’m in my mid-40s now, so I’m not getting any faster, but you can always work on shooting."
Oddly enough, pro-death penalty and pro-choice organizations are (definitionally) "pro-death" organizations. So a pacifist would be like a vegetarian at *those* kinds of events.
The NRA is a foolish but powerful advocacy group. It is not, afaict, a pro-death group, any more than NASCAR or the AMA (organizations whose members occasionally kill or die in the course of their profession in a way that it incidental to it, but not the main point of it). Advocating for dangerous tools (or cars or risky medical practices or incompetent doctors) doesn't make you pro-death.
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:00PM
a pacifist is someone who has some desire or aim not to kill. A gun can kill but it can be used for things not related to killing ... So the analogy to vegetarianism doesn't quit fit.
I think you are taking it a bit far or reading a bit to much into it. It was meant more to signify the futility of it all, she isn't going to understand and like it. A person that has zero experience to guns, comes for a culture that as she states has no interest in guns and then to top that off works for CNN, an organization that seem to more or less constantly vilify people that most likely belong to the gun-crowd, just isn't going to get insight in a few hours. This just isn't going to go well. Sure, she might have tried but she wasn't going to change or understand after a visit.
Sending her to do the story is just another time that the liberal-media don't even try. I don't believe this was a "let's get to know them story" (them being the "enemy"). If it had been she would have had a whole different approach. That she even bothers to mention that they are all white men and they don't like people like her is just one example of that. She probably wants to paint a picture of gun-toting racist rednecks in attendance but then that backfires as from her story it seems most of them are just normal people. But the line was there to remind her CNN-readers that there are evil and vile racists in the NRA crowd and Trump-land and you can never be allowed to forget that.
If you want to get to know someone and understand then you don't start by provoking them and asking why they like to own guns that kills, as in why do you like to murder (... people that look like her). It would be like going to Comic-con and ask them if (or why) they are virgins living in their parents basement. Good luck getting something worthwhile out of them after that. That is just poor interviewing technique. Provocation is a useful tool in an interview situation but not as a first question and not if you want to understand someone or "be friends". It will most likely put them in a hostile and defensive mood and things won't progress well from there. At least that is my experience from doing interviews in an academic setting. Probably great for TV-journalism if you want to ambush someone and get a reaction of denial or anger. Not so much in any other case.
These things combined is more or less why I thought her story was bad and didn't really offer any kind of insight.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:50PM
"Why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being?"
Well, why do people want to own cars? McDonalds hamburgers? Power tools? Knives (including kitchen knives?) Oh - the responses are varied and unique and won't get a true representation short of a book.
The number of times hunting is mentioned in her article? Zero. So she hasn't scratched the surface.
Has she been shooting? She "tries to understand" the fascination, but my guess is hasn't actually been on a firing line seeing what shooters actually experience.
Actually, she makes the case for American uniqueness pretty well - part of why it is the USA really is different from any other nation on Earth, and maybe why it is the superpower of the world. Lending credence to all the "bullshit" you learned about why America is special. Maybe it is.
And finally, she completely missed on a real simple notion: Most American gun owners ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE NRA AND DON'T WANT TO BE. Because the NRA is a money grubbing organization that spends every nickel of your membership dues in postage sending you MORE requests to send them money. Because the NRA proclaims King Donald the Guardian of Guns and Obama and Clinton the nasty nastiest meanies who will grab your guns if you elect them or any other Democrat. (Yes, Virginia there are Democrat and Independent gun owners. Maybe the NRA just doesn't want to have to work or to be in dialog with the politicians to truly explain why the 2nd is in fact important.) And because the NRA are small and narrow minded and will never ONCE concede that there does in fact need to be some level of regulations in the U.S. / won't even acknowledge that the conversation should be taking place.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:25PM (1 child)
I begin with this question: "Why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being?""
... and she wonders why they don't like her? It's like walking up to Indian people and ask why they like throwing acid in the face of women.
Exactly this. This isn't reporting, or even genuine curiosity. It begs the question, and is clearly a hit-piece.
It would be equally disingenuous to ask a car driver "why do you want to operate a device which one of thousands of things which goes wrong could hurtle you to a flaming death at 60 mph?" Or indeed, I could ask any chef, "why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being" (you did know knives can kill people too, right)?
As for a more genuine-curiosity question, why is this article even on SoylentNews? I'm not going to go into the /. level "it's not technology," but really... what's the deal with this one? NRA conventions happen all the time. People talk about guns all the time. There are different efforts to restrict, and occasionally expand, gun rights in the US. So why is this CNN article news, or indeed interesting, in any way? Is there an angle I missed?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:08PM
Is here because runaway, like buzzard, thought it was an example of an "open minded" liberal that he could use to shame all the fascists liberals who don't give them any respect.
Neither of them are very bright.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:28AM (2 children)
QfvLcozLwtE=
00000000 41 fb cb 72 8c cb c2 d1 |A..r....|
00000008
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:45PM (1 child)
is not off topic, mod didn't read the department line.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:14PM
for the google deficient :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:44PM (13 children)
Technically possible, but only as a rarity. Guns are common in India and almost everyone who knows anyone in a rural side will know someone who has a gun.
And nobody buys guns legally. For all the propaganda about non-violence, Indian independence movement started in 1857 by British Indian soldiers who pledged allegiance to dying Mughal king, and it started because of a problem with bullets. Compound with that the fact that most legal guns are manufactured by army or brought from outside of India, Indian has a culture of always going the desi [google.co.in] route.
1. Here [newslaundry.com]
2. Here [firstpost.com]
3. Number of guns is directly proportional to gun related death [scroll.in]. Who knew?
4. Guns in Delhi [indiatimes.com]
5. Guns in Kolkata [indiatimes.com]
Looks like a very rich spoiled girl is using her ethnicity to trot around a bunch of lies that Americans want to hear. I bet she can't even tell full name of Gandhi.
Here is a thorough investigation into guns in India [scoopwhoop.com]. Do watch it to know how exactly patriarchy treats women in India.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:52PM
Technically possible, but only as a rarity. Guns are common in India and almost everyone who knows anyone in a rural side will know someone who has a gun.
Gun ownership rates in india are less than gun ownership rates in the UK [wikipedia.org] and lots of people in the UK don't know anyone who owns a gun.
All your links prove is that there are a lot of guns in india.
But there are more than a 1.3 billion people in india too.
You can't just look at the numerator, you have to consider the denominator too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:10PM (11 children)
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
What lies? Woman wants to know why Americans love guns so much compared to her country. It's a POV article. Can't tell the full name of Gandhi? What the fuck do your opinions have to do with this?
The big reason this article is evoking butthurt is simply because it's from CNN. Some of you babies apparently can't handle that.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:26PM (10 children)
Huh? I didn't even notice CNN. If you had bothered to go through all the links you would have seen how girls are encouraged to carry guns in rural India. As far as citations are concerned, the only metric government has is how many illegal guns are being confiscated. I linked to that.
Secondly, there were students in my class (6th standard to 8th standard) that used to bring gun into the school. At that age they used to carry it around inside their shirt, showing it to "impress". One guy one day pulled it out on our geography teacher when he asked him some question. Unfortunately media IS biased and it knows that you have least interest in learning about the problems of India much less doing something to solve it. It also knows that a very large number of non-Americans are interested in American politics.
It was meant to show how little she is related to India yet she knows she can parade around her ethnicity for suckers who will believe whatever she says without [citations].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:54PM
In other words: your research and writing abilities are on par with hers. Bravo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:41PM (8 children)
It was meant to show how little she is related to India yet she knows she can parade around her ethnicity for suckers
You don't know her. You are just mad because she spoke against something you are hyper-emotionally invested in.
All you accomplished was to demonstrate that you got so worked up that you thought making unfounded insults against her character would be persuasive.
And it was persuasive. Enough to persuade any critical readers that you should not be taken seriously.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:58PM (4 children)
Neither do you. GP was making a wager that the person's viewpoint is inaccurate; you're wagering that it is accurate.
something you are hyper-emotionally invested in.
All you accomplished was to demonstrate that you got so worked up that you thought making unfounded insults
Pot: kettle.
Enough to persuade any critical readers that you should not be taken seriously.
At least he signed his name to his posts.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @07:14PM (3 children)
> GP was making a wager that the person's viewpoint is inaccurate; you're wagering that it is accurate.
Nope. That's you projecting your issues on my criticism of his denial of his insult.
I didn't pretend to make some 3rd party neutral observation that if true would reflect poorly on the OP.
I straight up said he was a wanker.
> At least he signed his name to his posts.
I don't want to be doxed.
Let me show you easy it is:
Full name: Tango Crisco Margarine
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Address: 1412 I Can't Believe Its Not Butter Lane
Foxtrot, Wisconsin
Phone: 712-667-1212
That is you, right?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 04 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)
You seem to be arguing against your own excuse with this doxxing thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)
Do I really have to explain to you that TANGO MARGARINE is not a real name?
That there is no road called "I can't believe its not butter lane?"
That there is no city named Foxtrot?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @02:37PM
You're complaining that you don't want to be doxxed for providing a pseudonym with no other connecting information. This doesn't make any sense.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday May 05 2017, @02:56AM (2 children)
A) I am not mad. I am pointing it out.
B) I am not sure where are the insults against her character. There is a class difference. The rich of India are westernized, get respected just because they can speak English, and have no understanding of the poor people (you know? the ones who shit on streets), and have never seen a village. There is so much information about this avilable and so much has been said and written for so long that doing this research for you just crosses the point of diminishing returns. Here is a starting point: 70% of Indians live in rural areas [business-standard.com]. Read up on what Gandhi himself said about this.
C) If by Critical Readers you mean you and then god bless you, carry on. Nobody is forcing you to be take anyone seriously. But if you seriously think the woman and I are on equal level of impact, what is there to debate? You think facts depend on your choice, then chose what makes you happy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:24AM (1 child)
Facts do depend on your choice.
You've been fantastic at choosing which facts to ignore.
Kind of like someone who goes around telling people that cars can not work because they have three wheels.
Which is 100% true. Cars do have three wheels. They just also have a 4th wheel which he chooses to ignore.
Also your attempt to play off the gandhi crack as not being an insult reveals just how disingenuous you are.
We all saw it in black and white.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday May 05 2017, @07:13AM
Ugh... do you have anything else beside false allegations and strawmen? You have yet to point out what I have said that was a lie. "I don't believe you" is not an valid argument. Now you have shifted your opposition to 'not knowing full name of Gandhi is an insult'. The true insult is that people who don't know shit about India or its history go around talking about Indian culture and Indian-ness.
I haven't said a thing about her comments about guns either. I pointed out that she doesn't represent the culture she is using to give weight to her talk. I haven't actually even touched the farce that is 'Indians are all peace loving ahimsa wielding cow worshiping street poopers' which is how Indians have been stereotyped in the west - a trope which this article is using.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:32PM (8 children)
She's missing the American penchant for thinking individually rather than collectively, the whole rugged individualist thing.
Another manifestation of it is superheroism. How many superhero comics are there? Yeah, lots. Superheroes do their good deeds with their special super powers whatever they are. Batman is one of the most possible, as his "power" is basically great wealth with which he can create superior tools, including of course the Batcomputer to fill in the knowledge needed to make it all work and apply the tools with effect. It's no good firing up the Batmobile if you have no idea where to go.
For their heroics, ordinary mortals have to rely on guns and radio communication.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:53PM (7 children)
She's missing the American penchant for thinking individually rather than collectively, the whole rugged individualist thing.
She's not going to find individuality at a gathering of people united by a fanatic interest in exactly one thing.
As for superheroism, all cultures love superheros. Few cultures love guns the way americans do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:33PM (6 children)
If it's written into your founding documents, it's not a fanatical position. Twit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:44PM (5 children)
No, its not.
Gun worship is not in the constitution.
Guns as a tool were.
There is no 5-million member organization dedicated to hammer ownership.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:21PM (4 children)
There would be if fucktard progressives were constantly trying to take them away.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:09AM (3 children)
I like your style, its very circular!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @01:54AM (2 children)
Thus, a supposedly circular argument turns out to not be circular. We have established cause and effect between key changes in NRA strategy and lobbying behavior with the biggest regulatory restrictions of gun ownership in US history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:29AM (1 child)
> following (not coincidentally, of course) an extremely aggressive Washington, DC regulation
Yes, coincidentally. There had been plenty of aggressive firearms regulations before that with the support of the NRA.
You practically spelled it out when you said the NRA had been lobbying for 40 years. All of the lobbying was pro-gun control.
You just made the case for why his, and apparently your, logic is circular.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @07:02AM
Yes, coincidentally. There had been plenty of aggressive firearms regulations before that with the support of the NRA. You practically spelled it out when you said the NRA had been lobbying for 40 years. All of the lobbying was pro-gun control.
That is incorrect. You don't see laws near as aggressive [thoughtco.com] as Washington DC's in 1976 until you get to the "black codes" [wikipedia.org] which were put into force in 1865 (and prohibited blacks from owning weapons) and subsequently repealed by the 14th Amendment and several laws passed in 1866 or so.
The groundbreaking aspect of the law can be seen in DC v. Heller. It took that long to get a court case on the DC law to the Supreme Court.
Second, the NRA didn't lobby for gun control prior to 1977. They lobbied for gun ownership and publicly supported the existing propaganda for gun control legislation in the 1930s. Gun control was going to happen no matter what the NRA did in the 1930s due to a combination of brazen crime involving automatic weapons and similar gear, and the most politically powerful president who has ever sat in the office, Franklin D. Roosevelt. By supporting FDR's bills, they got a better deal for gun owners.
Meanwhile, today, we're looking at much more restrictive laws than were passed prior to 1976 (outside of the black codes laws) and with much more staying power.
You just made the case for why his, and apparently your, logic is circular.
You do realize what circular logic is, right?
If that were actually true, it would mean that 5 million person movements are typically controlled in the sense of gun control. So if there were 5 million hammer enthusiasts, then there would be hammer control laws. In practice, there are far more than 5 million such people (they might not collect dozens of hammers, but there's a vast number of people who use hammers every day), and these hammer control laws just don't exist.
(Score: 0) by idiot_king on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:37PM (13 children)
...and thus violence has been seen, for a long time in India, as an ineffective way to conduct oneself. Same in China and other parts of Asia, as well as Europe. They're lightyears ahead of our stupid backwards country because they've always had a cosmopolitan and, increasingly, multicultural worldview. But because America has plenty of rural and suburban jackasses who think it's still the wild west, they cling to their dying violent culture, an unholy mixture of Jesus 'n' Ammunition, as a cry to a time when you quite literally could be killed by a Grizzly bear in the middle of the night. Those days are gone, and they are not coming back. It's literally a matter of time until the horrid Second Amendment gets repealed and tossed in the wastebin of history along with such smash hits as "Separate but Equal" and "Jim Crow."
Can't wait until these redneck chucklefucks join the 21st Century along with the rest of Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)
>as a cry to a time when you quite literally could be killed by a Grizzly bear in the middle of the night. Those days are gone, and they are not coming back.
When did bears lose the ability to maul and kill people?
>Same in China and other parts of Asia, as well as Europe. They're lightyears ahead of our stupid backwards country
Sounds like you need to emigrate.
>Can't wait until these redneck chucklefucks join the 21st Century along with the rest of Earth.
>by idiot_king (6587) on Thursday May 04, @04:37PM (#504382)
Username checks out. If you hate America so much, LEAVE! :P
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:15PM
When did bears lose the ability to maul and kill people?
When the liberal hoppophobes and the violently imposed tyrannical government took away the constitutional right to arm bears! That's when! How long before they make it illegal to bare arms, as well? Just the other night I found a Grizzly in my kitchen, and I could only make a strong request that he leave, since Obama took away my right to have guns, just because some shrink said I was crazy! Another Social Justice Warrior Shrink!! (Oh, and the bear apologized and left. Something about "the wrong house".)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mayo2y on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:14PM
The sad thing is you believe the BS that you just wrote.
Self-defense is something we did not delegate away to government. (Revenge is. But not self-defense.)
Without guns the weaker is prey to the stronger which is why Colts were called the "great equalizer." A 100 pound woman could defend herself against a 200 pound man with a Colt in her hand.
Finally, read up on the American Revolution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and you will see the main reason for guns. It's the last check and balance on an oppressive government.
If you are snickering about people defending themselves against the might of the government. Think again. Soldiers make an oath to the constitution, not an individual; soldiers would be firing on their own fathers and brothers and sons. Then think about what a few guys with guns were able to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:10PM (9 children)
It's literally a matter of time until the horrid Second Amendment gets repealed and tossed in the wastebin of history along with such smash hits as "Separate but Equal" and "Jim Crow."
It'll probably be repealed about the same time all those other horrid rights US citizens have get repealed.
I guess you don't have a clue why the Second Amendment is so popular these days.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @10:00PM (5 children)
I guess you don't have a clue why the Second Amendment is so popular these days.
Because a black man getting elected president scared the ever living shit out of a bunch of white snowflakes.
The denegroification of the whitehouse has calmed all their nerves and since the election guns sales are down so much that Remington had to lay off 120 full-time employees while Smith & Wesson's share price has declined 32% #MAGA!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @01:27AM
First, it isn't Smith & Wesson any more.
Now it's American Outdoor Brands.
From a March 14 article: [zerohedge.com]
Between Election day and Mid-March, their stock went from $28.39 to $19.13. [zerohedge.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @01:48AM
all your get whitey propaganda is just going to get more non whites killed. how do you think whites conquered the world? your race exists at our whim. you are a whining, hungry dog. get too nippy and we'll put one through your mangy head.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @07:06AM (2 children)
Because a black man getting elected president scared the ever living shit out of a bunch of white snowflakes.
What did Obama's blackness have to do with it? Let us keep in mind that Obama was an outspoken advocate for strong gun control. The same purchasing frenzy happened last year when Clinton, another gun control advocate, looked like she would get elected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @09:07AM (1 child)
What did Obama's blackness have to do with it?
What did khallow's cluelessness have to do with it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @02:51PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:07PM (2 children)
Well, I'm not the idiot king you were responding to but I must admit that I don't have a clue why the Second Amendment is so popular these days. Seriously, what gives? I saw that the President appeared at an NRA convention the other day to declare that the long assault on the Second Amendment was finally over. ????? Exactly what assault was he referring to? During the Obama Presidency--perhaps the most liberal we have seen in a while--there was no new gun control legislation put into law. The most Obama did was to make half-hearted pleas against the senseless violence and call for sensible gun regulations and reforms that never materialized. Is it about the rise in violent crime? Oh, wait...violent crime is at a twenty year low. [usnews.com] Is it a fear of terrorism? Accoring to this article, [businessinsider.com] you are more than thirteen times as likely to die while choking on food than you are to die by an attack by a foreign born terrorist. You are almost six times as likely to die by an accidental gunshot as by an attack from a foreign born terrorist; apparently a lot of these Second Amendment ammosexuals would do well to fear themselves and their Second Amendment loving buddies more than the terrorists. So, what gives with this, as you put it, rise in popularity of the Second Amendment these days? More and more, this gun mania is looking like a bit of chest thumping by guys who are trying to over-compensate for something or other. Of course, if you have evidence to back up another hypothesis, I would love to see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @01:51AM
growing will for revolution, obviously.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 05 2017, @02:07AM
the other day to declare that the long assault on the Second Amendment was finally over.
I think it's several factors. First, it's a defense of the right to self-defense which is a universal issue. Second, it's a defense of the US Constitution, again a universal issue. It's one thing to believe that the Second Amendment is wrong, it's something else, something really malodorous, to then undermine the rule of law because you can't muster the support to repeal the Second Amendment in the legal manner. Third, there's the defense of hunting and recreational shooting. These groups don't buy that firearm restrictions won't adversely affect them and they are huge, well-organized groups.