NRA declares bankruptcy, plans to incorporate in Texas:
The NRA [National Rifle Association] filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court in Dallas and said it planned to incorporate in Texas, where records show it formed a limited liability corporation, Sea Girt LLC, in November 2020. Sea Girt LLC made a separate bankruptcy filing Friday, listing fewer than $100,000 in liabilities.
In its filing, the NRA said its longtime leader, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, made the decision to file for bankruptcy protection in consultation with a "special litigation committee" comprising three NRA officials that was formed in September to oversee its legal strategies. The NRA board voted Jan. 7 to clarify LaPierre's employment agreement, giving him the power to "reorganize or restructure the affairs" of the organization.
"The move will enable long-term, sustainable growth and ensure the NRA's continued success as the nation's leading advocate for constitutional freedom – free from the toxic political environment of New York," the NRA said in a statement.
[...] Shortly after the announcement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would not allow the NRA to "evade accountability" or oversight. Her office's lawsuit last year highlighted misspending and self-dealing claims that have roiled the NRA and LaPierre in recent years— from hair and makeup for his wife to a $17 million post-employment contract for himself.
[...] The gun-rights group boasts about 5 million members. Though headquartered in Virginia, the NRA was chartered as a nonprofit in New York in 1871 and is incorporated in the state. Going forward, the NRA said a committee will study opportunities to relocate segments of its operations to Texas and elsewhere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @09:54AM (116 children)
Well this thread certainly won't turn into shitshow of sanctimonious freedom haters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @10:04AM (2 children)
Life will find a way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @01:38PM
So will DeathMonkey's new neighbors. [twitter.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:09PM
Are you calling the NRA dinosaurs?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Sunday January 17 2021, @10:40AM (111 children)
Let me start us off then:
The NRA is responsible for introducing a lot of restrictions on gun regulation where none was present before. Most notably, lobbying Ronal Reagan to pass the Mulford Act prohibiting open carry in California and resulting in the strictest gun laws in the country. Why? Because just like the Proud Boys, all card-carrying NRA members, they are a racist nazi organization, and wanted the legislation because black citizens started exercising their 2nd amendment rights. At least the Proud Boys this year finally came out and proudly announced they are nazis. According to the top google results, they also announced they are gay and started posting pictures of their mano-a-mano relationships.
The NRA is not for the 2nd amendment. They are for the 2nd amendment for their members, kkk members, and the assholes who tried to overthrow and murder the elected government. But more importantly, like Trump with his "fight the steal" fund, they are simply there to collect as much money from the dumbest most gullible portion of the population, while putting on a show for them. You know who is for the 2nd amendment? This guy. Because if everyone had a gun, the criminals don't get the upper hand. And because if everyone had a gun, the criminals would be all dead, because there would be more regular people with guns. And because if the people of Honk Kong, for example, all had guns, their protests would go very differently.
Guns are here to protect us from criminals, and government criminals - tyranny. The NRA is here to give violent dumb rednecks the upper hand, and collect some money for private jets. There are organizations which fight for our right to have guns. The NRA ain't it.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday January 17 2021, @12:22PM (2 children)
I have nothing more to add. It seems you've covered what needs to be said about the NRA. The 2nd along with most of the rest of the original 10 amendments have been gutted. Maybe the 6th, but even that has been chewed at around the edges fairly effectively.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:03PM
The 6th was death when the first prisoners arrived at gitmo.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:40PM
Take heart -- the 3rd Amendment is still going strong!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @01:05PM (9 children)
I hope it sticks, bankruptcy should not be an easy out for any person and especially organizations that can simply re-incorporate in other jurisdictions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @02:27AM (8 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 20 2021, @01:45PM (7 children)
Only when someone like Dell'Aquila steps up and brings these kinds of arguments before the courts.
How many bankruptcies are declared and granted after thousands or even millions of small instances of malfeasance have passed, but the injured have not individually suffered enough loss to make it worthwhile to fight in court or attempt to organize for a class action a.k.a. suit for enrichment of the plaintiffs' lawyers? Particularly when the bulk of the remuneration to plaintiffs' lawyers would be in the form of an impossible to collect judgement because the defendant has already spent the money?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @02:47PM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 20 2021, @05:15PM (5 children)
Because, rhetorically, I don't give a fuck. If you want to make an impressive point, you do the research and report back.
Citing (vague references to) law without any data on how it is actually practiced is like religion espousing rules about how the dead are sorted in the afterlife.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @06:24PM (4 children)
I guess you probably ought to stop doing that then, right? I'm not going to take an argument seriously when it's based on doing the thing that you are complaining about.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 20 2021, @06:35PM (3 children)
It's so cute, your persistent delusion that I care what you think.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @10:32PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 21 2021, @12:34AM (1 child)
I never took you for an optimist before.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 21 2021, @04:20AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday January 17 2021, @01:37PM (62 children)
It seldom works like that.
If everyone had a gun there would be more accidents. More people would be injured and killed.
"Regular" people have their ups and downs, and they're human and make mistakes. Guns could become involved in situations where they are not appropriate, thus making criminals out of those using them, and denying life or health to an innocent person. (Whether taking someone's life is ever an appropriate punishment is a whole other argument).
If the people of Hong Kong had guns, the authorities would just make sure that they had even bigger and better guns, or even more repressive laws and deadly weapons with which to stay several steps ahead of the people. For example, you can imagine a situation where guns owned by ordinary people can be disabled remotely by law enforcement or the regime.
I prefer to live in a country where gun laws are very strict and guns are rare. Gun violence is also very rare. Besides, I'm clumsy and not a great shot. And I've got better things to do with my time and money.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @01:53PM (4 children)
After Hurricane Andrew I came to the realization that 911 didn't work - at all. Not slow response, no response, you're on your own, for months in places.
I looked hard at gun ownership, and came to the conclusion that me holding a gun would make me more of a target to people I probably wouldn't even see before they shot me. Me without a gun is not a lethal threat, but is a legal threat that you could shoot and kill me and end up screwed for the rest of your life.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @11:13PM (3 children)
If legal threats worked for everyone, there wouldn't be so many criminals in jail.
One of the main differences between those who commit crimes and those who don't is time preference. That is, lack of consideration for long term consequences is more common in criminals; they don't think about what may happen down the line. It's why they don't think they'll get caught.
See, you look at someone and realize that if you shot them, that murder is a crime with no statue of limitations, that even if you got away with it you'd be looking over your shoulder the rest of your life, etc. This is why you're not a criminal (or at least not that kind of criminal) in the first place.
But someone who would shoot you thinks something like: "that guy has a pretty daughter and I wanna rape her and kill her, so I'll shoot that guy and then rape the daughter, that'll be fun fun fun". And he doesn't think a second beyond that. But if you have a gun, he thinks "that guy has a pretty daughter but he has a gun and might shoot me so I'll find somebody else and rape that daughter instead" and he moves on. (this is just an example; he might want your car, your boat, your wife, or your son, or maybe you've got a pretty mouth yourself)
The thing is, you live in a society where some people have guns and some don't, and criminals can't always tell if someone does or doesn't. The fact that you might have one, helps keep criminals away from you, since they're not sure. So you're riding on the coattails, as it were, of the folks who do own guns. You're welcome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @07:33AM
Or, the criminal may see that you are "carrying", and then laugh his ass of when you try to pull your piece and, well, the rest is history, and Opera!!
I just fucking shot myself; the Musical [youtube.com]
Notice that the thug on the target was tres menacing!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @01:34PM
Crazy murderers are extremely rare. Most murders are spouse/lover or related to organized crime. Having a gun could make you a target of burglars looking to obtain weapons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @07:01PM
Hum... here I'm not a criminal because Gawd said "thou shalt not kill!"
But you raise a good point. Right-wingers, being total and utter hypocrites, believe that "thou shall not kill" is merely for the untermensch. Violence is truly the only language they understand.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @02:46PM (19 children)
> I prefer to live in a country where gun laws are very strict and guns are rare. Gun violence is also very rare.
Police log in excess of 6000 firearms incidents a year [parliament.uk] in England and Wales. Guns are not rare, most farm owners have shotguns and sports rifles are also common. [service.gov.uk] The majority of criminal firearms offenses in the UK are committed with handguns which are illegal to own.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @04:19PM (18 children)
6000 "incidents" in a country of 66 million is actually pretty rare.
States like Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri and Mississippi run over 20 gun deaths per 100,000 population - which would be 13,200 deaths in the UK, annually.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm [cdc.gov]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:10PM (5 children)
Semantics Vs. calibration. Around 60% of those 6000 incidents involve handguns which are illegal and it's simply the tip of the iceberg.
If one in 500 households owned a piano, we wouldn't say piano ownership was rare. If 1/6th of those pianos were Steinway, we'd say they were relatively common (among piano owners). Looking at the number of shotgun and firearms certificates like that, legal gun ownership in the UK is not exactly "rare". Similarly 3600 handgun incidents a year is not rare when people cannot legally obtain one.
The massive increase in gun deaths in the US over the last ~20 years is due to suicide, look back to see gun deaths at a more comparable rate. [weforum.org] The other comparison you miss is criminals in the US also illegally obtain their firearms. [bjs.gov] We can't compare directly but if we're being honest brokers, we can certainly calibrate better.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:54PM (4 children)
Really, sounds rare to me. Most neighborhoods I have lived in have had less than 500 houses - for one or none of the houses in my neighborhood to own a piano, that seems rare enough to call rare.
Fair enough.
And the price of tea in China this morning is?
Proposal: if handguns were illegal, would there be more or less handguns available? (By any methods, legal or illegal.) If there are less handguns available, would criminals have more or less handguns in their possession? If criminals are less likely to have handguns, are they more or less likely to kill people with handguns?
Look at what happened in Australia, then tell me what your honest calibration is regarding gun deaths and regulation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @07:40PM (3 children)
Almost everybody (in my example) would know someone with a piano at home.
There are around 3 Million registered firearms in Australia for a population of ~25.5M and a low estimate would be ~250,000 illegal firearms in circulation. That's comparable to some estimates for illegal guns in the UK. [mirror.co.uk] I'm all for removing illegal firearms but laws simply cannot stop criminals owning guns and legal gun owners tend towards shooting themselves. Suicide doesn't correlate with gun ownership but with socioeconomic factors and shouldn't be counted as gun deaths for the purposes of a gun control argument. The guy who taught me to shoot as a child blew his brains out after his son died from cancer. His death was attributable to clinical depression, not the gun.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @09:23PM (1 child)
Almost everybody (in my neighborhood) has guns in their home, many have small arsenals in a safe plus more that don't fit inside. That's not rare.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @10:34PM
Well, they've not shot you yet. A tiny minority of gun owners own about half of all the weapons. [worldatlas.com] Geographic ownership [matadornetwork.com] Vs. violence [worldpopulationreview.com] is also interesting.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Mykl on Sunday January 17 2021, @11:28PM
What's really interesting about Australia's gun ownership amongst criminals is that they overwhelmingly use their firearms exclusively against each other. It is exceedingly rare for the general public to be threatened by a gun - that's because it brings way too much attention and pressure on that criminal and their entire network of associates.
Contrast with 'another country' in which most people can legally obtain a firearm and you have people pointing guns at each other for cutting them off in traffic, insulting them or even just looking at them funny.
(Score: 3, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:10PM (3 children)
Those are 20 gun deaths, not 20 due to accidents. Most gun deaths are a criminal killing someone. That's already illegal. Making a gun illegal does not make the criminal not have a gun. It makes the victim not have a gun, and quite dead.
Guns (and even knives with a locking blade, like the illegal butterfly knife I carry, but i'm well off and white) are illegal in Chicago. We have 2 people shot dead. Per day. Pretty much all of it by felons who cannot buy a guy anywhere.
Why not take a look at the most armed cities and towns in the US. Oh look, they also have lower rates of violent crime and murder.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:31PM (2 children)
> Most gun deaths are a criminal killing someone.
Wrong! See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ [pewresearch.org]
The link has more details including an attempt to account for the increase in US population over time.
(Score: -1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:52PM (1 child)
I see.. So, you're going to take a thread that's about gun deaths from accidents vs criminal activity, take a snippet out of it shorter than a sentence, and prove it wrong if it were to apply not to the scope of the thread, but to a scope you defined, just so you could say "wrong."
cool, lemme try:
>an attempt to account for the increase in US population over time.
Wrong! the US population increases because we get an influx of immigrants, and more new babies are born every faster than the old people pass. You're saying it increases because of guns? that's just stupid. you're stupid. and wrong.
no, you annoying fuck, we're not talking about suicides, or police shooting someone, literally anywhere in this thread. and yes, compared to the 486 accidents, the 14542 murders are the majority.
what a fucking clown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @07:37AM
I just love the smell of fakefuck69 in the morning. It smells like, accidental suicide.
(Score: 2, Touché) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:43PM (7 children)
You're including suicide deaths right? There are countries with very low to no gun ownership, Korea for example, which have much higher suicide rates than the US. Apparently, death will find a way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @09:26PM (5 children)
Citing outliers [wikimedia.org] much?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday January 18 2021, @04:38AM (4 children)
OK -- Belgium then. Stricter than US, suicide rate at 15.7/100k vs US 13.7. Or Finland, most guns in Europe, easy to get, suicide rate at 11.7 (lower than the US). Sweden -- more restrictive than the us, suicide rate of 13.8 (higher than, though just). It's those long arctic nights right? Norway, gun laws slightly more restrictive than US: suicide rate of 10.1 (less than the US).
Anyway, gun ownership and suicide is basically all over the map. Guns or not, death will find a way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 18 2021, @02:33PM (2 children)
Suicide has, as you say, factors of climate, and genetics and economics and social pressures and judgement post mortem etc. It's one of the less comparable statistics from country to country.
Death by firearm is, comparatively, straight forward. Did the subject die? Binary choice. Was a firearm wound a primary contributing factor in the death - also nearly binary. Who pulled the trigger and why is completely up for speculation, and the best witness is almost always not available for comment.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday January 19 2021, @09:08AM (1 child)
Car death. Ban cars.
Bridge death. Ban bridges.
Aspirin death. Ban aspiring.
Rope death. Ban rope.
blah blah blah. Gun death is a marketing term. Rise above it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 19 2021, @11:22AM
Cars are useful, and fun. Bridges too. Aspirin is a pretty broad spectrum drug that probably wouldn't pass modern approval processes. Rope - go hang yourself if you don't like it's utility.
Handguns are made for killing, ain't no good for nothin' else. And if you like to drink the whiskey, you might even shoot yourself. Just as true today as it was 50 years ago.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @04:28PM
I hate to be impolite, but what the fucking fuck are you gibbering on about?!?!? Your "easy to get" nonsense could barely be further from the truth.
Refs: many a historical chat in the pub with members of a Finnish big bore club who unanimously consider the regulations insane.
And quoth a Finnish friend I just asked (who's not in that big bore club): "the official route is hell these days and you likely won't get a new permit for anything unless it's because of a job (police etc)"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @07:41AM
Suicide by nuclear weapons is very low in countries that have nuclear weapons, as well, and very happy we all are about that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:24PM (20 children)
I may sound anti-gun, but I'm not, I'm certainly pro well regulated militia, I'm just anti-gun-nut. During a transitional period, I've even hosted a local gun club's website and mailing list on one of my servers, as they're great guys and needed a favour briefly. And they're doing it because their grandparents know what it's like to have armed foreigners on their soil, and would like to see their country's defence as strength through depth. Which I fully support - the neighbouring country is still as much a threat as it's ever been.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday January 17 2021, @04:16PM (11 children)
Just like we don't need to wear masks once we get covid below a certain level? Crime much like disease has a tendency to balloon when the conditions dampening it are taken away.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @04:37PM (3 children)
If that's the case, then they should definitely take basically all of the guns away and start focusing on things that actually work to reduce crime. The bottom line is that it's mostly ignorant hicks that are pushing this whole BS about guns being necessary for crime prevention. Other countries have more guns, but fewer gun deaths and other countries have less crime despite a lack of guns, this whole business about guns as a crime prevention tool is pretty ridiculous. If we actually cared about violence, we'd fix our criminal justice system to involve more justice, more rehabilitation and focus on rehabilitating our neighborhoods so that places like Cleveland don't harbor such nefarious actors. But, we don't really care about crime reduction as a society except where it impacts businesses. Go to slam you in the ass prison for violating copyright law without even profiting off of it, but bilk thousands of people out of their pensions and they'll let you go to country club prison where you're able to live a mostly complete life behind bars for the few years you're there.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:46PM (2 children)
"gun deaths" is marketing term.
I predict the UK will be implementing sharp stick control after their knife control efforts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @07:53AM
Just wait till some homicidal maniac lunges at you with bunch of loganberries [youtube.com]!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @03:44PM
Gun deaths is relevant to people who care about unnecessary death. Measures that reduce death due to cancer are unlikely to have any effect on deaths due to gun violence. People don't like gun violence being a category because including it with other types of homicide/accident allows them to avoid taking any measures that might reduce the amount of deaths from firearms.
At the end of the day, it's pretty much impossible to argue with such morons. We've seen it in other places where taking away one method of murder/self-murder leads to a net reduction even though some individuals do migrate to a different method, there's a portion that give up on the idea and never try. It's the same thing here, firearms are by far the easiest way to kill somebody, nothing is as convenient.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:58PM (2 children)
So, "Freedom" to own guns dampens crime?
Tell me how that tracks with gun ownership regulation in Australia. How did Australian crime change when their leaders committed political suicide by passing some mild gun ownership regulation?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 18 2021, @09:50PM (1 child)
Indeed.
If it were mild gun ownership regulation, then it probably didn't have an effect, one way or another, right?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 18 2021, @11:11PM
Unsubstantiated opinion noted.
Actually, gun deaths from the regulated classes of weapons has fallen, basically like a stone off a cliff. Meanwhile, crime didn't change significantly - continuing to trend down due to other causes I believe.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @01:29AM (1 child)
You do realise you're contradicting the post I was responding too, don't you? I'll butt out, and just let you two get a room where you can settle your differences with guns.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 18 2021, @09:54PM
That's not "whataboutism". It's analogies. I suppose I could do it with cars next time?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @03:58PM (1 child)
I would like to point out that the mask mandates for the Spanish flu have, indeed been dropped.
So if history is precedent, the mask mandate will be dropped once it is reasonable to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @07:05PM
Butbut Jooooooos! Muh boogerloo!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:06PM (7 children)
I'm of the opinion that gun ownership should be well regulated, and that those with a reason to own a gun, whether farmers, game keepers or people competing in sports, should be allowed to have them.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:51PM (5 children)
I'm of the opinion that those who think they know best, have failed to study 20th century history. The greatest threat to one's well being, has always been and will continue to be one's own government. Germany, USSR, Ukraine, Cambodia, China. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but the total surely approaches 100,000,000 deaths. But we really do want to make sure that only government has effective self-defense? That's literally suicidal crazy talk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @03:45PM
Fortunately in most cases the governments of other countries intervene.
But your point is 100% correct, all government all bad.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @04:41PM (3 children)
And I say that as someone sitting in a wonderfully free and open democratic state that only 30 years ago was part of one of the horror stories you list, and which got its freedom in part by holding hands and singing.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 18 2021, @10:05PM (2 children)
Overthrowing the system often is working *within* the system. Let us keep in mind that most countries with the sort of injustice that drives communist revolutions had no alternative to overthrow of the country. Working within the system might have resulted in less bloodshed, maybe, but it'd also result in a century of stagnation.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 19 2021, @08:33AM (1 child)
Disagree, definitionally, working on the principle that no sufficiently advanced system has a self-destruct switch built in.
> Let us keep in mind that most countries with the sort of injustice that drives communist revolutions had no alternative to overthrow of the country.
Partly agree. However, social movements do occur and cause real change in governance. Women got the vote. Common people got the vote. Blacks got the vote.
> Working within the system might have resulted in less bloodshed, maybe, but it'd also result in a century of stagnation.
Disagree. Your "it'd" implies a certainty, and there's no evidence that what could possibly follow would definitely follow. The exemplar countries, after the revolutions, demonstrably stagnated. So even if there would have been some stagnation after working within the system, you'd need to prove that that stagnation would be worse than the stagnation that occured after the revolution in order for it to be significant.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 19 2021, @12:21PM
They weren't sufficiently advanced. And even when a system starts sufficiently advanced, it doesn't mean it stays that way. Notice in the US the various attempts at creating systems over the years that are easy to set up, but hard to take down (International Space Station, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Social Security, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and National Security Agency). When successful, these create bureaucratic rigidity, obstructions to "real change in governance".
It's the nature of such insufficiently advanced societies that change is abrupt or non existent.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @01:18AM
That's why you're a slave living in a slave country, turgid.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @04:14PM (2 children)
Statistically, no. One percent of all firearm deaths are accidental. People who purchase firearms usually know not to leave them loaded. Firearm safety is a major component of gun culture, which is not actually the rough-and-rowdy-redneck thing that the media likes to represent. When you do see shootings reported as accidental discharges, it is in fact often difficult to believe that they are accidental. A previous vice president shooting a hunting partner comes to mind: [wikipedia.org] many people had difficulty believing that the discharge was accidental.
Of the one percent of firearm deaths that are accidental, most are children (more specifically, the majority are 24 and under). Any shooting club or association to which a firearm owner belongs will encourage him in the strongest possible terms to store his firearms safely, preferably in a vault, and separately from ammunition if he has children. Safety is part of gun culture in America.
The other ninety-nine percent of firearm deaths are intentional. Of these, suicide tends to outnumber homicide two to one. If you die by firearm, you are twice as likely to kill yourself intentionally than be murdered. Personally, I believe that people have the right to commit suicide. I own a firearm and would rather die by my own hand than age into dementia and become a burden to others. The few remaining intentional firearm deaths, namely homicides, run at about 4.3 per 100,000 people, less than the rate of pre-COVID influenza and pneumonia.
So, if everyone had a gun, the increase in accidents would likely be negligible. If anything, more people intending suicide would choose firearms over other methods less likely to succeed. Given that there are more firearms in the US than citizens already, I don't think there's much to worry about. In fact, given the sheer number of firearms in the US, the number of non-suicidal firearms deaths is surprisingly low, unless one realizes how much of a culture of safety exists among firearms owners.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:57PM
"given the sheer number of firearms in the US, the number of non-suicidal firearms deaths is surprisingly low"
I agree with your post but quibble with this. Not the fact that the numbers are low, but that it is surprising. Aside from suicide, most deaths are caused by criminals, and since most people are not criminals, I'm NOT surprised the number is low.
As an aside about accidental deaths, easily half occur when people prohibited from having guns (felons) are careless with their black-market guns.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @04:47PM
Statistically, if you increase the cause of some outcome, and leave all other parameters unchanged, that outcome will in general be caused more. That would be the null hypothesis. If you wish to come up with an extraordinary claim that magically gun accidents won't follow that correlation, then the burden of proof is upon you, you'll need some extraordinary evidence. Not 4 paragraphs of verbiage that in no way support your assertion.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:21PM (5 children)
bigger guns from the government don't work when you're a tiny police or national guard force, up against the multi-million population of the country, armed with handguns. you could bring in some bombers and level the city though, and "win." no country is willing to do that. so yes, the HK protesters, the millions of them, armed with handguns stops china dead in its tracks.
>Gun violence is also very rare.
then you're talking about a country that does not have our demographics and issues - the cause of the murders here.
>prefer to live in a country where gun laws are very strict and guns are rare.
right, rare - as in the criminals will still have them, and people are left defenseless. great logic though: let's outlaw guns, so the criminals can't get them, because they don't want to break the law. newsflash sherlock: those felons out there murdering people - it's already illegal for them to have a gun, and it's already illegal for them to murder. if you didn't figure it out yet, they don't care about the law.
>more accidents
so you're going to take away the choice of someone who can handle a firearm, because someone else might have an accident? you don't have that right. now, completing a safety course as requirement I'm fully onboard with. there are more deadly car accidents than gun accidents - let's outlaw cars.
in 2019, there were over 15000 gun deaths in america. 73 of those were due to a gun accident.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:01PM (4 children)
China has come pretty close with tanks in Tienanmen square.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:21PM (3 children)
And this is a perfect example of my point. They did that to stop a bunch of students. And that event is something they still actively try to hide, because a few tanks was already an "oh shit, we've gone too far" moment for them. If you had the millions of HK protesters with guns, the tanks are just going to get covered in gasoline and burned to the ground, by the millions of people. You can't kill millions of people with tanks. You need things like bombs and napalm. And a few tanks were already a mistake they don't care to repeat.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 17 2021, @09:21PM
This presumes rational leaders thinking about the future... 75 year old reality show producer/stars? I think his visit to N.Korea was to get ideas for his own use.
It's only unthinkable until it happens.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @03:47PM (1 child)
Have you tried taking on a tank with just small arms fire? How did that work out? This whole business of having an armed insurrection that succeeds with just weapons that are considered protected by the 2nd amendment is laughable. It's even more laughable now that the military has drones that can attack without even having personnel on the ground.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday January 18 2021, @05:32PM
You don't take on a tank with that. A tank does zero for a crowd of several millions of people. Then the tank gets covered by gasoline and set on fire. Tanks are made to fight other tanks. Not cruise around urban streets with millions of people surrounding highrises.
Drones? Yeah, that's what I mentioned. Aircrafts dropping bombs and destroying the city. You're assuming the country's army is A: willing to level the city where their own house is, and B: will follow the orders to kill their own families and friends living in those cities, because some orange clown told them to.
The 2nd amendment is to kill the cops and similar ground-based enforcement, not to fight an army. Because there is no army to fight - because while troops can be persuaded to stop something like BLM protesters getting out of control and setting on fire the neighborhood where the soldier's family lives, the cannot be persuaded to bomb that neighborhood and kill their own family.
nice strawman. take a a look at turkey or greece. corruption and dictators much worse than US or even China. Every time a new crazy dictator-wannabe tries to get the army to do their bidding against the citizens, the army overthrows the government instead, and usually executes the dictator. dictators are free to rule, and free to have police-level people terrorize people during small local incidents. When the entire population rises up - guess what, the army is part of the uprising.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:45PM
Perspective. How many people are injured or killed due to accidents, versus people injured or killed every year due to violent criminals? I think that you have bought into one of the hoplophobic talking points.
Further perspective. How many crimes are prevented every year, simply because the intended victim is armed? The gun control lobby never wants to discuss those numbers. Most times, the weapon need not be used, or even brandished. Mere possession of an equalizer is often times enough to prevent an attack.
"Gun violence" isn't the issue. Violence is the issue. Publish your violent crime rates, along with the method used for determing that rate. The UK has some sneaky ways of hiding it's violence.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Arik on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:10PM (3 children)
There's no such thing as "gun violence" - guns are inanimate objects, it's still "people violence" and you have plenty of it. People get glassed and stabbed and beaten to death with blunt objects on occasion, and it's ok with you as long as there are no guns?
You know, if you had more guns, you might actually have less violence. But your media wouldn't tell you violence was down. They'd tell you "gun" violence was up and encourage panic instead. And it sounds like you'd be happy to play their patsy.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @04:07PM
The difference is the level of effort required to kill with each weapon.
Blunt instruments can kill, yes, but seldom in a single blow, and almost never at range. This killing someone with them requires a greater deal of commitment over a period of several seconds.
Killing someone with a gun takes very little time, the amount of time to move a finger about a quarter of an inch. The time between, "I am not going to kill this person" and, "Oh God what have I done" is literally the space of a single thought, "pull finger back."
Now, I am far from what people would call, anti-gun, I am firmly opposed to all these "red-flag" laws that remove a persons possessions without a trial, but I also feel that people that own and use guns need to be responsible, and I do think that they need to be held to a higher standard than others. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @04:53PM (1 child)
Stop trying to pretend you don't understand a perfectly common expression, you're smarter than that. It's looks like nothing but points scoring by pseudo-intellectual semantic wankery. Semantically, it is points scoring, I'll give you that, but from my perspective, it scores -1.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday January 18 2021, @10:11PM
Of course I understand it, but the person using it clearly doesn't, and you seem a bit disoriented as well.
In this case, by repeating this phrase of agitprop, "gun violence" the speaker is convincing himself that this constitutes a meaningful, significant category in the context. Which is a politically motivated falsehood, the entire semantic morass is a trap deliberately designed to snare the mind, and lead it away from reason.
Semantics isn't "wankery" it's absolutely fundamental for clear thinking. Poor semantic hygiene leads to poor reasoning.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:53PM
enjoy your vaccine passports and your muslim/african rape gangs, brainwashed slave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @06:38PM
You're absolutely right, and it annoys me how often that part gets left out. If everyone had a gun, accidents would be more common. More people would be injured or killed, through a multitude of mistakes that are preventable.
What annoys me most, however, is not that the pro-gun-rights side fails to mention that or address it. It's that they fail to embrace it as the honest and up-front cost of doing business, and forge ahead anyway.
Everything has a price. The price of allowing the population to keep and bear arms is that people will die of gun-related injuries. Not just the quote-unquote 'criminals', but total innocents. The guy standing next to the bank robber in the bank when another customer pulls and fires. The wife or husband who got up in the night for something, awakened the spouse and the spouse shoots them thinking it's an intruder. The idiot teenager or his friend, fucking around with dad's gun trying to impress everyone.
And that is OK. It's all right. It's an acceptable risk. The pros outweigh the cons, even when the cons are laid out like that. Admitting that out loud would be a PR disaster so you never see it done, but it needs to be. Honesty is the best policy. Just own up to that and move forward with some transparency, NRA. Please. Getting it out in the open allows for some reasonable debate about it. Right now, the anti-gun lobby trumpets it and is met with silence, or the point is avoided and dodged. That's no good for anyone.
Gun's don't kill people; People kill people. Removing guns means removing the gun-related deaths, not removing deaths. The solution is education and training for the people. You won't hit 0% on that course, and you probably won't get it anywhere nearly as low as you would by restricting firearms. But restricting them won't hit 0% either.
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Sunday January 17 2021, @02:43PM (25 children)
So they are for the second amendment. With this stream of bullshit, one wonders if anything else you say has any truth to it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:24PM (6 children)
They're only somewhat for the 2nd Amendment. They're way too willing to compromise. A lot of guns-rights supports have long since moved on to other organizations, like Gun Owners of America. NRA still has political clout, and the manufacturers still like them, but like a lot of organizations they've largely abandoned their founding mission. Similar to how the ACLU has been abandoning it's 1st Amendment support, although further along (to balance that, the ACLU seems to be moving rather faster).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @04:42PM (5 children)
A lot of the NRA support comes from people that joined before the organization went off the deep end. Back when they were genuinely an organization that cared about not just gun rights, but also gun safety. These days there are numerous other organizations that support gun rights and the 2nd amendment that aren't corrupt, soulless and willing to let thousands die so that the manufacturers can continue making a buck selling weapons that no reasonable person has need for.
I wonder how many of those folks that had memberships from back in the day and were making them on cruise control are going to back the 2nd amendment foundation, the only other gun rights group as recklessly irresponsible as the NRA versus one of the numerous smaller organizations that are pushing for more reasonable policy where people can have their guns, but there's measures in place to actually protect the people from weapons falling into the wrong hands. We know from places like Australia and Japan that gun regulations can work if you actually care at least as much about the victims as the gun owners. In the US, we just have an economy that's centered on death and destruction, so the unending wave of destruction is likely to continue.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:56PM (4 children)
"so that the manufacturers can continue making a buck selling weapons that no reasonable person has need for."
Ohh, STFU, you stupid bitch. The framers said "of current military and police use". The whole point of the 2nd is to kill tyrannical government scum. We are supposed to have machine guns and no seditious kid-killing ATF scum. If you want to see what a real american looks like search for Timothy McVeigh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @08:01AM (1 child)
Executed and dead, after blowing up a day-care for toddlers? No wonder no one likes "real" Americans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @05:52PM
piglets don't count. that's on their parents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @03:59PM (1 child)
Where were you when they took away the 4th with the Patriot Act (GW Bush)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @06:02PM
working 18/7's under illegal aliens to get out of the inner city. I've always been against the patriot act, but i also understand that if people are not woken up to the truth it will be so easy for the media to write off true patriotism as some crazy BS. Most people don't even know why McVeigh was so pissed. You don't get to shoot mothers holding toddlers in the head and spray 10 yr old boys in the back after killing his dog over a trumped up non-crime or burn down buildings full of people including kids and babies just for practicing their religious beliefs (even if they are nutty) and get away with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Sunday January 17 2021, @04:48PM (14 children)
your mom's asshole for your dad is not the same as your mom's asshole for the general public. what you are saying is that is the same thing, and being faithful to your partner means your mom is a whore for the general public.
no, they are not for the second amendment, which applies to everyone. they want a second amendment for white people only. which is not the second amendment.
with this stream of complete lack of understanding of basic concepts in logic, one wonders if anything else you do is problematic for you, such as tying your shoelaces.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 19 2021, @02:09AM (13 children)
Oh, Mr. Mom's Asshole, so what if you have feelz? I've seen better argument from the flat Earther who was here a few years back. Where's the evidence? NRA has made some bozo moves, like not backing Heller v. District of Columbia (in favor of their own challenges to the same law), but they've opposed a lot of bad gun control law over the past few decades.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday January 19 2021, @06:52AM (12 children)
my original post: here's an example of the NRA passing gun control in CA to take away guns from blacks who started arming themselves
you: where's the evidence?
BTW, it's your dad who's Mr. Mom's asshole. I explained that pretty well, but there's that lack of comprehension disability of yours again. But since you think a 2nd amendment just for whites is the same as the 2nd amendment, I am indeed Mr. Mom's Asshole. So are all those blacks. So is anyone who has a nickel. Because if your mom's asshole is for your dad, by your logic it's for everybody. Hmm, you're part of "everybody." Hey dummy, how did it feel fucking your mom's asshole? Did your dad lick her shit off your little outie belly button?
i swear shooting fish in a barrel is harder than unloading on you. about as hard as when you're plowing your mom's asshole.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 19 2021, @06:38PM (11 children)
Also, you're missing that back then, the approach of the NRA was to steer restrictive gun control law rather than oppose it outright. The idea being that the law would be less restrictive via heavily negotiated support than if the NRA of the day had unconditionally opposed it.
Another example is the NRA's support for 1930s era federal law that banned silencers and sawed off shotguns. Some sort of restrictions were going to happen, but they were weakened in exchange for the NRA's support.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday January 19 2021, @07:01PM (10 children)
NRA: pushed through the strictest gun control laws in america in CA
you: they steer restrictive gun control law rather than oppose it outright
yeah, they don't oppose it outright. they support it outright as long as it makes sure whites are more armed than blacks.
here's a recent video of the NRA supporting racist cops. they haven't changed one bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=169zQ1g-Ul0 [youtube.com]
here's a video with a bunch of lies against blacks and obama. you see, it's all the blacks shooting everyone. despite there being 3x as many white people doing it.
here's a nice article about how the nra supports people legally having a gun. and supports when cops shoot black people legally having a gun
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/the-nras-catch-22-for-black-men-shot-by-police/570124/ [theatlantic.com]
it's not back then. it's like saying the kkk is a peaceful organization just handing out literature now. it's being a very dense buffoon. it's being you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @01:24AM (9 children)
In 1967. And need I mention that the "strictest gun control laws in America" would have happened anyway? They had bipartisan support at the time.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday January 20 2021, @01:56AM (8 children)
NRA does bad thing. You: not their fault, would have happened anywise.
I list more examples: You: gonna pretend that text isn't there.
me shitting in your eagerly open mouth some more: gun violence is the fault of black people and obama, ignore that white people are responsible for 3x the gun violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKE-4cqhego [youtube.com]
you: I'm gonna ignore that too, because the only way a redneck like myself has power is through corruption, because I'm fat, uneducated, and never wrong, and in a gun fight I'd lose, so let's make sure my opponent doesn't have a gun when I storm the capitol.
FYI, I'm bored with you because you've gotten repetative - it's like arguing with an antivaxxer. Once I've had my laughs, you've served your purpose. So feel free to talk to the wall from this point on - I ain't reading it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @02:21AM (6 children)
In other words, black people commit twice as much gun violence per capita. I can play your dumbass game too.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday January 20 2021, @11:11AM (5 children)
The game here was to get you to say exactly this. And this is why you and the NRA are racist. You don't understand, and won't accept the explanation, but I'm explaining for readers - who can laugh at you.
>black people commit twice as much gun violence per capita
correct. and 7.5 times the murders when I calculate it from 2019 fbi data. and white people commit 5x the murders of asian people. this has zero to do with anything though. those are unrelated stats you're using to justify wanting racist policies.
A person is most likely to get shot by a white person in america. Yes, this is because there are more white people. So why does the NRA video and the policies they push target blacks, when the victims are shot by whites? Why are all the criminals in the video black, when there are more white criminals?
You see, while black people per capita murder 7.5x more people than whites, the two black guys in my office with a masters in computer science are not any more likely to murder than a white engineer in that office. The constitution, including the 2nd amendment, cannot punish a specific person for crimes committed by someone else. What you and the NRA are saying is they can be, because the criminal and the non-criminal have the same skin color.
Thank you for proving why the NRA supports racist policies, and why people like you do. It's because you are literally too dumb to connect 3 dots - you can only connect 2.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @12:19PM (4 children)
Congrats! You won your game. But I find it remarkable how little you gained by it.
It's the morality play bullshit again. I'm not wearing your black hat. What's in it for me to be your fake racist in this thread?
I grant the video does appear to be mildly racist for the reason you described (and it certainly is NRA-branded). But so what? You have yet to connect that to your earlier claim that the NRA doesn't support the second amendment.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday January 20 2021, @01:13PM (3 children)
NRA: pushes restrictive bun laws
you: would have happened anywise
NRA: racist in 1967
you: that was a long time ago, they're not anymore
NRA: racist currently
you: yes, they're still racist, but so what
my claim for them not supporting the 2nd amendment was that they support it only for whites, not for blacks. which is not the second amendment - that applies to everyone equally. and now we're back to that argument of your mom being a public whore by just fucking your dad.
>how little you gained by it.
your entire purpose on this site is to be a target so dumb it takes no effort to corner you and keep shitting all over you. due to your lack of iq, when you try to argue you just make yourself look like more of a clown. your purpose here is to provide me with entertainment, by laughing at a person who is not smart.
so what I've gained by literally this entire thread is my purpose for being on this site. to be entertained. by making fun at you. because it's easy. because you're very, very dumb.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @03:00PM (2 children)
But please continue to push that narrative of how awesome you are in this thread. Someone will probably believe it.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday January 20 2021, @04:58PM (1 child)
the second amendment applies to everyone. the NRA does not support it as applied to everyone.
"equality for all" is in the constitution. "equality for some" is not in the constitution. "some" is included in "all."
I do understand you are having a hard time with that basic logic, despite the example of your mom being a whore. This, again, is why you are simply here to entertain me. I'm not here to convince you, nor do I care what you believe. I'm only here to laugh at you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 20 2021, @06:31PM
So you admit once again that the NRA supports the Second Amendment. Drop the crap. It doesn't matter if NRA's support is conditional (which incidentally you have yet to show), it's still support.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2021, @02:24AM
I just need to be right. Your boredom is irrelevant.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:53PM (2 children)
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347324-the-racist-origin-of-gun-control-laws [thehill.com]
Gun laws have always been racist. Many of them have been explicitly so. In recent times, explicitly stating that a law is aimed at the black population is a no-no, so we now hide racist intent behind flowery language. Fact is, no Dem wants to consider the possibility that the darkies in their jurisdictions might have the real power to challenge Dem rule.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2021, @08:10AM (1 child)
Like, in Arkansas.
https://www.ksla.com/2020/12/23/shooting-little-river-co-sends-one-hospital-one-arrested/ [ksla.com]
https://www.arklatexhomepage.com/news/crime/shooting-leaves-man-dead-in-sw-arkansas-search-underway-for-2-persons-of-interest/ [arklatexhomepage.com]
https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2011/may/10/little-river-shooting/248986/ [texarkanagazette.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 18 2021, @03:10PM
Those stories are relevant - or irrelevant - to the racist nature of gun laws, how, exactly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @03:33PM
facefuk, if they used lube would you still be this mad?
Please stop, my sides, they cannot take anymore!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @06:49PM
Typical Jew propaganda.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lester on Sunday January 17 2021, @08:48PM (1 child)
I would like statistics with the next figures:
Forget it, no gun will protect you from tyranny. Two centuries ago maybe a group of armed civilians could face an army. Nowadays, nope. A modern army can destroy any civilian armed force... and a full city. What could protect you from tyranny is that more than a half of the army doesn't want a tyranny.
So, try to keep your army, soldiers and generals loyal to constitution, otherwise your guns will be just toys.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday January 18 2021, @08:53PM
but we're not talking about civillians facing the army. an army soldier isn't going to firebomb the suburb where his parents live. in fact, even in dictatorship type states like greece, turkey, egypt, the army sides with the people and overthrows the dictator. dictators can only survive small scale engagements. they cannot, even in the worst countries, have open war with the population. because soldiers are people, and they're not going to kill their friends and family, irrelevant of orders. they're only ok killing families of other people, in other countries. the army is useless for the dictator in any internal conflict, because they're there to defend the people of their homeland - that's literally their purpose. if anyone orders them to do the opposite, that dictator is dead.
what we do talk about when we say tyranny, is a bunch of fat ex-bullies from high school, who due to lack of skills useful to society, become corrupt authoritarian cops on a power trip. they are no match for an armed population, and they are no match for the army.
it's not half of the army that that needs to be on the side of the people. it's the entire army that is always by definition of "army" that is on the side of their people. soldiers and generals don't need to give a flying fuck about the constitution - they're not there to defend the constitution. that is an internal matter. they are there to defend the people living in the country from threats - to defend their house, their family, and their friends.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday January 18 2021, @12:01AM (3 children)
... like in Somalia, and Afghanista, and Yemen, and Iraq, and Syria...
(Please complete the sentence as you feel appropriate).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Monday January 18 2021, @01:55PM (2 children)
9I'll complete it: thank you for agreeing with me that making guns illegal leaves only the violent criminals with guns.
In Syria, you have to get a license to get a gun. They don't issue licenses. The guns people have there are illegal.
Iraq: guns have been legal only since 2012, and you have to register and get approval from the police first, and get a license and gun carrying identity card.
Somalia: all guns are illegal
Afghanistan: only antique guns are allowed (think civil war musket). Handguns (the thing responsible for literally all murders) are not sold, at all.
Everything is allowed in rural areas - including anti-tank RPGs. Bringing any weapons into the cities requires permits.
What I do find funny is you think that literal war zones are war zones because of handguns being legal there. Are you like 5 years old?
Now here in the US, places with restrictive gun laws have the most gun deaths, and places where guns are legal and owned by citizens have low rates of violent crime. Guns are illegal in Chicago. Have been for ages. We have 2 murders - per day, every day. I guess all those murderers with guns should read the law that they're not allowed to have a gun.
what you end up with by outlawing guns is only criminals having the guns, and only corrupt governments having the guns. I guess in your world, a violent felon with a record, who can't get a gun already, in a city where guns are already prohibited, will decide to not have one. Because it's illegal. l-o- fucking -l. the real world show this is simply false - plenty of places where guns are illegal, it just makes the crime worse. almost like criminals don't care about what's legal or not. seriously, are you five? I'm seriously asking, because your iq is that of a 5yo - is your body? because i love me dem sexy 5yo boys.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Monday January 18 2021, @05:10PM (1 child)
Spot on. Have an upvote.
For future posts, could you leave the extra-zany ending off? I'm upvoting your argument, not . . . whatever the last few lines are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Monday January 18 2021, @05:29PM
The last few lines are my entertainment. Whenever I see someone make an argument with lies, bad faith, or talking down while being wrong, it is entertaining for me to attack them personally. People find different jokes funny, people find different things entertaining. If you don't find that funny or entertaining, that part of the post is not for you - it's for me and the hundreds of people with preferences different than yours.
That extra content you don't like, for me and others like me, makes the discussion fun to participate in, as opposed to something boring with dry facts. It is a part of why I am on here. When I want boring and dry on-topic only discussion, I go to hacker news - a site with that purpose, which is enforced by extremely heavy moderation and deletion of anything off-topic. This site is not for that - it's an open platform, and it serves that purpose, not the purpose you want it to serve. In fact, it's one of very few sites that serve that purpose, with hundreds others offering what you are looking for.
Thanks for the upvote, but if you don't want to upvote something because you don't like a part of the comment, don't upvote. Modding is completely irrelevant here anywise, since literally all users read at -1. Because we don't want what we read selected by random strangers on the internet, and because too many people vote politically or for/against a user - instead of on content. What is actually uncalled for, is telling people what they should and should not say. Feel free to do it, but know it generates laughter, at you, instead of accomplishing your goal of getting people to talk in a manner you like.
take a look at the original post that started this, which is sitting at +5:
Flamebait=3, Troll=1, Insightful=3, Interesting=2, Informative=2, Underrated=1
this alone should show you that half the voting has zero to do with content.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday January 18 2021, @07:33PM
Congrats on the 5 - Flamebait!
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @02:14PM
They're laying low. The Feds are out to get them after their fascist tantrum at the Capitol the other day.