*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

My absolute favorite dumbfuck argument by 2nd amendment droolers: Socialists take away your guns and then tyranny happens. If they still had had their guns, then tyranny wouldn't have happened.

That means they had a gun, and it didn't help.

"I need this gun to fight tyranny"
- "give it to me"
"ok"







...







"damn it!"

[Poopadoop]

Woman: They killed my entire family.
Trump: Where are they now?
Woman: They're dead.

Woman: ISIS is gone but the region is still very unsafe. I can't go back there.
Trump: But ISIS is gone?
Woman: Yes, but the region is still unsafe.
Trump: Oh. Yes, I know the region very well.

Trump: You won a Nobel Prize?
Woman: Yes.
Trump: What was it for? They'd like to know (points to press).

[Poopadoop]

I'm kinda surprised Trump never told that refugee Nobel Prize winner to go back where she came from.

[oskar]

I know that on a substance level this isn't a big deal, but to me this is one of the most shocking moments of his presidency. There's a woman telling him how her family was killed, and he doesn't even turn to face her, and then asks a question that shows he hasn't been listening at all. The nobel price question just shows complete lack of human empathy. What does that mean? Your family is in a mass grave, but you got the nobel prize, so it all evens out, right?

[spoonitnow]

If you weren't so severely afflicted with TDS, you could apply Occam's razor and see that he most likely misheard her.

Buuuuuuuut that's absurd to you, so all the sane people will just continue to laugh at you.

[oskar]

Or maybe he would have had a better chance of hearing her right if he wasn't turned away from her at a 120° angle, only occasionally glancing over his shoulder to check if she's still there.


But anyway, how's the wall going?

[Poopadoop]

Lol, ya he just misheard her. It's 100% that and 0% that he wasn't paying attention and couldn't give a shit.


Woman: My entire family got killed.
Trump: Where are they now?

Just once, I'd like to see someone give a heartfelt response to one of his stupid comments, like "Where are they? They're fucking dead idiot. Fuck you're a moron!"

...and then see him rage-tweet lie about it for six days.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ny-qanon-trump

#MAGA

[oskar]

No way!

Special ed teacher, huh... That's a loss. That could have been your next republican vice president right there.

[Poopadoop]

GOP vetting process for candidates:

"Do you hate libruls?"

"Yup!"

"Are you prepared to scream about it?"

"Fuck yeah!"

"You seem perfect. Sign here, please."

[spoonitnow]

WAhhhhh Baltimore is racist

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/...522025985?s=20

It's gawn trickle down any second now...

https://www.businessinsider.de/fbi-d...19-8?r=US&IR=T
#EyesOnWuf

[oskar]

Guns: 1
Tyranny: -20

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/u...manifesto.html

[oskar]

lol make that 29:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/04/u...ter/index.html

Busy day for inalienable rights!

[Poopadoop]

I'm sure there were good people on both sides of the guns though.

[OngBonga]

"lol"

Hilarious, isn't it?

[oskar]

It's hilarious that there are still people who believe that more guns are the solution to stop this. It is hilarious that people think guns are an effective tool against tyranny, rather than the tool of a tyrant against all historic evidence.

But anyway, Ong, I have an OKI b&w laser printer that started making horizontal white stripes. The cartridge has 10k+ pages left and the image drum looks clean and is at 80%. I didn't use it for a month and it went from near perfect to horrible just by sitting there. Humidity and temperature went up, but that's it.

[Poopadoop]

It's hilarious that there are still people who believe that more guns are the solution to stop this. It is hilarious that people think guns are an effective tool against tyranny, rather than the tool of a tyrant against all historic evidence.

Kind of, but it's more sad than funny if you think about it, no?

arggghh.jpg

You might try tipping the printer cartridge up and down. Sometimes works for me.

[OngBonga]

Clean your rollers with some isopropyl.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@oskar: You're bringing up a topic that almost got you banned a short time ago. That's not likely to end well for you. If you're finished being an active member on FTR, you don't have to pull a bunch of shenanigans to get banned. You can just walk away.

Calling my position hilarious is fine and all. It's great if I amuse you. Friends amuse each other.

However, if you keep posting on the topic of gun legality, you will inevitably bait me into responding to you on the subject. I'm fine with that, but historically, you've shown that you are incapable of having a civil discourse on this topic with me. I pushed the STOP button on this once before, out of respect for you. If you bring it up again, I will take that as a sign that you feel you're ready to civilly discuss this difficult topic. If that's not the case, then this is a dangerous path for you.

You know the rules, here. I'm not your dad. If you let yourself get emotionally worked up, like you have done when discussing this topic, then that can end up with you getting banned. I'd rather see you stay, and just talk about other things, but if that's not acceptable to you, then I guess I get it. If that's the case, then it'd be better for us both if you just leave FTR than you bait me into banning you, though.

***
Just a suggestion: when you're feeling most worked up and you want to tell me how much of a stupid idiot I am, just make it funny, and it's fine. Just add the respectful nod to the fact that we're both having this discussion for our own amusement and not to change each other. If we change, that's great and all, but the point of the conversation is to learn about each other, not to change each other.
I.e. saying something is bullshit is not cool, but saying something is the detritus leaving the southern end of a north-bound bull is funny, and conveys the same sentiment. It lets your fellow converser know that while you absolutely disagree with them, there's still humanity between you.

[oskar]

You might try tipping the printer cartridge up and down. Sometimes works for me.

I shook it like a crack baby.

Clean your rollers with some isopropyl.

Did that for the third time now. I think I'm charging it up by rubbing it and it starts transporting ink, so I guess I'm done cleaning. It also changes nothing about the line pattern, which makes me think it's something else. I hope I don't have to take the whole thing apart. It's still passable for text but it's weird that I have no in-between prints. A couple of months ago I had zero lines, now all of the sudden I get this shit:

[oskar]

@MMM I'm not the one getting worked up. You are, and you should be. This is nothing compared to what you'll see once Trump loses re-election. If a well regulated militia is a 21 year old 8-chan incel with a fully automatic weapon, you're gonna have yourself a civil war that will rival the old one in stupidity.

[oskar]

Thank you, Garret. We are now going to cut from our live fear mongering to the consequences of it:

[oskar]

btw mmm, "bait you into responding" ?
You said the bottom line is: guns against tyranny is your hill to die on. I asked you to show me a single historic precedent of privately owned guns being successfully used against tyranny, and you declared that I am being too emotional and you need not respond any further. I would love for you to respond because I am convinced that your entire argument falls apart if you allowed yourself to examine it.

[oskar]

Guys, guys, call off the cavalerie! We found the cause for all of this:

https://twitter.com/existentialfish/...778874369?s=20

[Poopadoop]

"cavalry"

I'm old enough to remember when people said if you played a certain heavy metal vinyl record backwards it would say "do it, do it" and then a kid would be forced to commit suicide.

And then it was violence in cartoons.

Now it's video games.

Funny how no-one ever thinks "guns + mental illness = dead people." Guess that's too simple a theory to be true.

[OngBonga]

An interesting paradox with humans...

OMG climate change, war, inequality, humans are bad.

*humans die horribly*

OMG this is terrible, we need to make this stop.

Fuck it, I'll say it out loud. What we need is a plague to take out around 6 billion people, at random. A good, hard reset without wiping out the species.

Moar guns for crazy people imo.

[oskar]

If every gun fired backwards I'd be a huge proponent of guns. I am not for innocent people dying.
As far as mass extinction: I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in our lifetimes. Climate researchers have long warned that if the tundra starts to melt, it will release a huge amount of greenhouse gasses, massively accelerating global warming. This year 2 million hectares of tundra caught on fire.
The single biggest cause for global warming is overpopulation, but lowering birth rates isn't something that has even entered public discourse. I don't think anything significant will happen until human mass extinction is well underway.

[OngBonga]

oskar - A couple of quick things to try... is your printer hooked up to the electric through a surge protector, or anything that might limit the power it gets? Also, try recalibrating if you haven't already, refer to the manual or google if you don't know how.

Failing that, here's an email I got off my friend (who has seen your image posted above), he is a former printer refurbisher so he's not talking out of his ass...

Primary reason for dropouts is low toner, give the cartridge a good rattle and put it back in. Any better?
Yes? Ace! But you'll need to buy more toner soon.
No? Right...
Does the black on the image scratch off easily?
Yes? Fuser is fucked, throw it away and buy a new one.
No? Right...
Can you see a spongy black a4 width roller anywhere inside the printer if yes, you should be able to clean it with a soft dust free cloth. A bit of alcohol on it will help DO NOT USE WATER.
Did cleaning this roller help? (Might make it worse for the first print but 2nd should be clear)
Yes! Woot! You might have to do this every so often, the transfer roller is electrostatically charged so toner sticks to it like flys on sh....
No, Right...
Now threaten it with a hammer...
If none of this helps, then it's probably a fault with the machines High Voltage power supply unit and it's basically now a very large heavy doorstop. Put it out of it's misery.
DO NOT PURCHASE AN HP MACHINE TO REPLACE IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.


Kindest


Alex

[OngBonga]

I am not for innocent people dying.

Innocent people die all the time. And define "innocent". You mean not guilty of any crime, ever? That's very few people. Or maybe you mean "people who have never committed a serious crime", and now we have a subjective discussion about what qualifies as a "serious crime". Maybe Brexit voters or Trump supporters are not innocent, regardless of their criminal history. I mean, that's for you to decide, it's subjective.

Someone going round with a gun firing at random probably isn't killing "innocent" people in his insane view.

As far as mass extinction: I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in our lifetimes.

Maybe this isn't a bad thing for the overall benefit of the human race. It's probably bad for all the species that become extinct in the meantime, but fuck them, humans first. It's not even selfish, humans are literally the only species on this planet potentially capable of colonising other planets, thus extending the life of the species significantly. Everything else on Earth, except for anything we take with us, is destined to become extinct eventually. Humans are the only ones that have any chance of survival.

But first, we need a hard fucking reset. We need to not have so many people to feed, we need to not create so much heat and carbon dioxide, we need to burn less fuel and cut down less trees. If climate change is the way it happens, whatever. Some people will survive, lots of species will adapt, some will thrive, many will be lost. So long as humans aren't lost, and those who survive learn how to not make the same fuck up, then that's progress for the human species.

[OngBonga]

Now threaten it with a hammer...

By the way, this is solid advice. Where I work, there's a CD player on the shop floor that is a bit of a cunt. I have figured out how to make it work... you basically have to threaten it with landfill, and give it a slap so it knows you mean business. I've no logical explanation for how this works, other than to say it just does. My best guess is that electrical devices are people too, and need to be treated like naughty children when they misbehave. Obviously when a child plays up, you give the little shit a slap and threaten it with no x-box. Solid parenting.

[oskar]

Thanks! I'll keep that as a checklist. I'll take another look at it tomorrow.

define "innocent"

Not responsible for the thing that kills them. Like I said my ideal version would be: Trump supporters against the military, but it looks like it's going to be mostly aimless domestic terrorism, so that sucks.

Someone going round with a gun firing at random probably isn't killing "innocent" people in his insane view.

That is my point. Those guys are exercising their constitutional right. In their mind they are killing for a worthy cause.

I think you're imagining mass extinction maybe a little bit too peaceful. People are not just going to stay where they are, complaining that their feet are getting wet.

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

I think you're imagining mass extinction maybe a little bit too peaceful. People are not just going to stay where they are, complaining that their feet are getting wet.

Wet feet? Are you imagining mass extinction to be caused by rising sea levels? That's a minor problem in the grand scheme of things. Sea levels will take time to rise, there will be adequate warning for the most part. We won't see a meter overnight, more like a meter in a century. Bad, but not that bad that there's no time to react, or even adapt. I mean, we could protect coastal cities with bigger sea walls. Or maybe it's more economical to simply relocate.

I'd be more concerned about failing crops due to unstable temperatures and rainfall. If climate change is a major problem for humans, it will probably manifest itself in the form of a global famine before we see New York go under water.

So those that survive this will be those who can grow their own food... and protect themselves. Which, incidentally, is why I want a gun. Not to protect myself from tyranny, but to improve my chances of survival in the event of the collapse of civilisation. I'd want to be able to hunt, and protect myself and my resources.

[Poopadoop]

Ruh Roh!

[MadMojoMonkey]

btw mmm, "bait you into responding" ?

IDK what else you'd call this, but here we are.

You said the bottom line is: guns against tyranny is your hill to die on.

No, I didn't.

If you want to discuss my position, maybe start with a quote of mine and take it from there.

If you don't care enough about me to address what I've said, and you just want to argue with me, but against an idea I don't hold, then that's not remotely cool.

We know we disagree on this.
We know the odds that either of us will change their mind is next to 0.
We know we are both smart, capable people who care about being better and ultimately doing more good than bad in the world.
Let's remember all that.
It's absolutely possible to disagree passionately about some things and still be friendly with each other.

I asked you to show me a single historic precedent of privately owned guns being successfully used against tyranny, and you declared that I am being too emotional and you need not respond any further. I would love for you to respond

That's a total mischaracterization of the flow of events.

Your attachment to such a trivial and tangential part of my argument (which I don't even remember the specific context of anymore) is evidence of the fact that you're getting emotional. The fact that you still think that argument is anywhere near the core of my position is further evidence thereof.

*sigh*
I never said anything about guns being successful at stopping tyranny. I said people who are the targets of tyranny have every right to every means to protect and defend themselves from said tyranny. Whether or not they can be successful in ending said tyranny is not the discussion, and has no impact on the statement. I'm not suggestion violence solves anything. I'm saying people whom are the target of violence cannot be told that it's wrong or illegal for them to respond with violence.

(All of which I've explained before)
Which, to me, is further evidence that you're getting emotionally worked up and not listening to me or what my position is. Rather, you've invented some bogeyman position in your head that you and I agree is a totally stupid argument.

[...] because I am convinced that your entire argument falls apart if you allowed yourself to examine it.

Herein lies the problem. Let that conviction go, because it is false.
It is leading you to justify that it's OK to be disrespectful to me, because it allows you to perceive my position as morally inferior to yours.
That is simply false. Neither of us is morally "right."
There's no moral right, here. There's the wrong of violence and death, and there's the wrong of mass criminalization of non-criminals.

I say that the presumption of innocence is among the best moves humans have ever made, and that any argument that goes against it must meet phenomenal standards.
IDK the ratio of murderers to non-murderers, but I'm guessing it's in the 1% range. It is unconscionable, IMO, to curtail the rights of 99% of people in an effort to control the negative outcomes caused by 1% of those people.

That's the hill I'll die on, FWIW.

[oskar]

Do not accuse Johnny Saynothing of what Johnny Saynothing didn't say. Got it.

I never said anything about guns being successful at stopping tyranny. I said people who are the targets of tyranny have every right to every means to protect and defend themselves from said tyranny. Whether or not they can be successful in ending said tyranny is not the discussion, and has no impact on the statement. I'm not suggestion violence solves anything. I'm saying people whom are the target of violence cannot be told that it's wrong or illegal for them to respond with violence.

That's what all mass shooters are doing. You should read one of their manifestos sometime.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...503884292?s=20

Moving quickly!

Rough times for mentally ill video gamers.

[oskar]

Ruh Roh!

Not the worst take, but I don't think it has been shown that if democrats show restraint that republicans will reciprocate.

[oskar]

So those that survive this will be those who can grow their own food... and protect themselves. Which, incidentally, is why I want a gun. Not to protect myself from tyranny, but to improve my chances of survival in the event of the collapse of civilisation. I'd want to be able to hunt, and protect myself and my resources.

Based on your location, I recommend you take a look at harpoons, Aquaman.

[OngBonga]

I'm well inland, around 75 meters above sea level and next to a huge fucking hill. I'm also right next to Wales, which is mountainous. So I don't think a harpoon will be of much use, though it would probably be a fun method of dealing with intruders.

[oskar]

I'm well inland, around 75 meters above sea level and next to a huge fucking hill island.

ftfy

[OngBonga]

It is a huge island. And I'm in the middle of it. If the fear porn is right and we have 2 meters of sea level increase by 2100, I'm still 73 meters above the shit.

Did you threaten your printer with a hammer yet?

[oskar]

I had to fix the bathroom sink which took longer than I thought and now I have to clean up a bit because the glass fiber man is coming tomorrow and replacing my modem.

No surge protector, but I do have some kind of electrical issue. Sometimes when I plug something in or turn something on, a usb device on my pc disconnects and reconnects. But that is all the symptomes I got and I've been trying to hunt that down for a while. I'll check power draw and see if I get voltage drops. I have to find out what's going on some day.

I cleaned the image drum and transfer roller but they weren't really dirty and images look identical before and after.
Toner is full. I can see when I take out the toner cartridge that the part with the image drum is filled up.
ink does not scratch off at all. I did replace the toner cartridge with an aftermarket one circa 1000 pages ago. maybe I got scammed with bad toner.

Since I literally didn't move or touch it, I think power supply issues sound reasonable. We've had some thunderstorms... and the issue with my pc... I can imagine that it's a blown capacitor due to thunderstorms. I should probably get surge protection.

I haven't found out how to do a recalibration. It's an oki 4131 which looks identical to all 400 series printers. Honestly... it prints text. I'll give it one more go tomorrow, but if that fails I'll live with the print quality or it gets the hammer.

[OngBonga]

A surge protector might cause such a problem, rather than solve it. Not sure why, perhaps it's only a problem if there are other electrical devices sharing the same surge protector. Basically, if it's a power problem, the power to the printer is fluctuating between "enough" and "not enough". It's not "too much", that would simply blow the fuse.

That's really strange that your usb responds to electrical devices, and is something I'd be concerned about. Maybe you need your house rewired. I'd definitely want to talk to an electrician about that, at the very least.

[OngBonga]

I haven't had a look around this site, but this is a forum where you might be able to get some free advice...
https://www.electriciansforums.net/

Or of course there's reddit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do not accuse Johnny Saynothing of what Johnny Saynothing didn't say. Got it.

My memory isn't all that great and if you find a quote where I said what you think I said, then cool. Slap it down and maybe I did say something really stupid. It happens.

Otherwise, come down off that high horse. I didn't say the stupid thing you said is a stupid thing I said. That's not on me.

That's what all mass shooters are doing. You should read one of their manifestos sometime.

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Is it that since some criminally insane people are literate, that all literate people should be treated as though they are criminally insane?

[Poopadoop]

[MadMojoMonkey]

Have you tried parenting them? You know... sitting down and reading a book to or with them? Playing a board game or something?

Maybe try not neglecting them and they wont act out with cries for attention, and the whole stick problem goes away?

***
Maybe end the ridiculous problem with laws that overcriminalize everything, overcrowded prisons run by NGO's, and segregation of access to public services that keep poor neighborhoods uneducated and un-cared-for?

Maybe stop glorifying sound bites that boil complex issues down to something asinine, but catchy?

Maybe find a leader that leads people to greater cooperation and peace, rather than deeper and deeper into us vs. them mentality?

Maybe not avoid the real issues - the causes of human violence - and focus on preventing crimes before they start rather than criminalizing the entire population and vilifying whatever happens to be the current version of throwing rocks at other people?

[CoccoBill]

^Solid reasons for everyone who cares about those issues to stay up to date in politics and vote.

[oskar]

My memory isn't all that great and if you find a quote where I said what you think I said, then cool. Slap it down and maybe I did say something really stupid. It happens.

Otherwise, come down off that high horse. I didn't say the stupid thing you said is a stupid thing I said. That's not on me.


I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Is it that since some criminally insane people are literate, that all literate people should be treated as though they are criminally insane?

No, the point is that they think they're fighting tyranny... and are doing so unsuccessfully. Which was literally your bar for why all guns should be legal.

You repeated the thing I keep mocking you for point for point:

I never said anything about guns being successful at stopping tyranny. I said people who are the targets of tyranny have every right to every means to protect and defend themselves from said tyranny. Whether or not they can be successful in ending said tyranny is not the discussion, and has no impact on the statement. I'm not suggestion violence solves anything. I'm saying people whom are the target of violence cannot be told that it's wrong or illegal for them to respond with violence.

I can promise you I didn't try to deliberately misrepresent that. I wouldn't know how to misrepresent that to make less sense.

My position is super simple: The El Paso shooter was a 21 year old with a history of mental health problems who was able to purchase an AK47 legally. I am not against people owning AK47's. I understand that it is one of the least likely weapons to kill somebody. But I do think to own one, you should pass background checks that include your mental health history, and it should require training. You are ok with people having to pass a test to operate any vehicle or heavy machinery, or almost anything that can cause harm, but a fully automatic weapon which was designed to kill as many people as possible in a short a time as possible: Nothing but a waiting period... why? So he can potentially unsuccessfully fight what he perceives as tyranny? That's what he did!

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, the point is that they think they're fighting tyranny... and are doing so unsuccessfully. Which was literally your bar for why all guns should be legal.

You repeated the thing I keep mocking you for point for point:

We're not talking about the same thing, though.

You're saying that guns can't stop tyranny.
I agree with you that guns can't stop tyranny.
The notion that violence on either side will solve or help anything is wrong. We both agree on that.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think that defeating tyranny is relevant. I don't.
Tyranny is a human trait. Humans do it, and often to other humans.
Removing guns doesn't stop oppression, but it does make it easier to oppress people.
The advantage goes strongly in favor of the oppressors, the people that will do illegal things, own illegal weapons, and use them against other people.

I can promise you I didn't try to deliberately misrepresent that. I wouldn't know how to misrepresent that to make less sense.

Excellent!

If you don't understand something I've said, then just ask for clarity. Don't assume I said something you believe is unaccountably stupid.

My position is super simple: The El Paso shooter was a 21 year old with a history of mental health problems who was able to purchase an AK47 legally. I am not against people owning AK47's. I understand that it is one of the least likely weapons to kill somebody. But I do think to own one, you should pass background checks that include your mental health history, and it should require training.

I fully agree with this.

You are ok with people having to pass a test to operate any vehicle or heavy machinery, or almost anything that can cause harm, but a fully automatic weapon which was designed to kill as many people as possible in a short a time as possible: Nothing but a waiting period... why?

I don't know where you got this notion.

I've said many times that the only thing I'm against is outright banning of weapons.
I'm in favor of background checks, monetary fees associated with licensing, regulations and regular inspections by regulatory bodies.
Whatever, really.

I'm only against the notion that some group of people decides that it's OK for them to own and use weapons, but other people are not. If there's a ban, it goes for everyone, police and military included. Those people in those armed services are not special people. There are just as many criminally insane people who are cops or soldiers as not.

So he can potentially unsuccessfully fight what he perceives as tyranny? That's what he did!

Yes. A criminally insane person acted in a way that is at odds with the reality the rest of us perceive.
That's psychology for you.

Now that we know he's criminally insane, we can strip him of rights and put him in jail.
Until he was a criminal, there was no reason to treat him like one. Now that he is, there is reason to.

The thing about the presumption of innocence is that it means the bad guys get to cause at least one tragedy before we're allowed to lock them up and take away their rights.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/st...780203520?s=20
Here's an uplifting story for spoon. 8chan went down and frenworld is banned, so I expect him back any second now.

Now that we know he's criminally insane, we can strip him of rights and put him in jail.
Until he was a criminal, there was no reason to treat him like one. Now that he is, there is reason to.

Making kill and rape lists, being on psychotropic medication and showing psychopathic tendencies is "no reason." He literally has to commit mass murder before we take his mass murder weapon away?
If someone has a knife in their hand and says: I will fucking stab you! - Are you going to take their knife away, or will you insist that they have every right to hold on to that knife until they stab someone? What is this?

And I still don't understand your take. You fully acknowledge that guns are not going to help you fight a government successfully, but you want private citizens to have literal weapons of mass destruction for the sole purpose of fighting perceived tyranny unsuccessfully. That is terrorism. Your argument for why private citizens should own nuclear weapons is that so they can be used for terrorist attacks.
I know this is a meme that the gun lobby some-fucking-how successfully planted into american brains, but for anyone who's not part of the cult this is like reading timecube theory. It doesn't make any sense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Making kill and rape lists, being on psychotropic medication and showing psychopathic tendencies is "no reason." He literally has to commit mass murder before we take his mass murder weapon away?

Sorry, I know literally nothing about this event that isn't posted in this thread, so I was unaware of the background of this criminal.

If this history you've put forward is legit, then I feel that there was plenty of reason to mark this person as unfit for owning any form of firearm.

My argument is that what we need is the regulatory body which is empowered and enabled to make those kinds of calls, and to leave the non-criminal / mentally stable people alone.

If someone has a knife in their hand and says: I will fucking stab you! - Are you going to take their knife away, or will you insist that they have every right to hold on to that knife until they stab someone? What is this?

If anything, I'm saying that if someone is trying to kill me with a knife, then I have the right to defend myself with a gun, even if I don't want to own a gun.
Personally, if someone threatens to stab me with a knife, I'm calling the police while I get as far away from that situation as possible.

It is already illegal to threaten my well-being with or without a weapon, though the penalties are more severe if they use a weapon.
I'm not opposed to that law in any way.

And I still don't understand your take.

That's fine. I'm no legal expert. I only know that I hold a couple of ideals very tightly, and right at the top is the presumption of innocence.

You fully acknowledge that guns are not going to help you fight a government successfully

Not quite. Really close, but not quite what I'm saying.

Fighting a government with guns can be done quite successfully. Defeating them with guns is unlikely at best.

But really... that's not the core of my argument, so giving it all this attention when we should really be talking about the presumption of innocence is missing the point.

but you want private citizens to have literal weapons of mass destruction for the sole purpose of fighting perceived tyranny unsuccessfully.

I don't want anyone to have a gun. I do not own a gun, nor do I want to own a gun. Still, I demand the right to make that choice.
I want people to have that right.

I don't want people to be attacked by a government.
I want people whom are being attacked to not be neutered into a slaughter which the attacker has no contest or culpability for enacting.

I want to begrudgingly admit that humans are still committing genocides on a regular basis, even in Europe (I know, right?), and that pretending otherwise is choosing ignorance.

But, again, this is not central to my position, so it's not worth spending too much time on.

That is terrorism. Your argument for why private citizens should own nuclear weapons is that so they can be used for terrorist attacks.
I know is is a meme that the gun lobby some-fucking-how successfully planted into american brains, but for anyone who's not part of the cult this is like reading timecube theory. It doesn't make any sense.

Let it go. That's not my point at all. That's your invented bogeyman's argument.

My point is:
The presumption of innocence is probably the best idea ever to gain widespread popularity among humans around the world.
It's a good one.
Maybe the best one.

Let's keep that in mind as a top priority in all things. Let's inject fairness to good people into the world.
Nature is not fair. Nature rewards bad behavior, thievery, murder, etc. We choose to be different. We choose to impose fairness to good people.
I think that's of the utmost importance, because when we stray from that ideal, the leaders whom lead us astray are the most dangerous humans who've ever lived.

[boost]

MMM, your stance is confusing.

You say things like

My argument is that what we need is the regulatory body which is empowered and enabled to make those kinds of calls, and to leave the non-criminal / mentally stable people alone.

Which is just nonsensical. You can't have a regulatory apparatus that does not affect consumers of the regulated good. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The NRA is right in that increased gun control will see more people have their right to bare arms curtailed. If you believe non criminals/sane people shouldn't have their second amendment rights infringed upon, full stop, then you must be opposed to background checks, waiting periods, etc. Otherwise you are in the murky grey area with the rest of us trying to figure out what the balance is.

**to be clear, I don't have a strong position on the 2nd-- I just think your arguments are bad, but presented well, masking their incoherence.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you believe non criminals/sane people shouldn't have their second amendment rights infringed upon, full stop, then you must be opposed to background checks, waiting periods, etc.

What?
No.
...
What?

We all have to pass various tests and pay a fee to obtain a driver's license.
I don't see that as an infringement of rights. Do you?

Otherwise you are in the murky grey area with the rest of us trying to figure out what the balance is.

For me, the balance is equality and the presumption of innocence. If anyone has the right to own XXX, then everyone has the right to own XXX, provided they meet the same criteria as the first party.
Any public regulatory entity that wants to work out the particulars can have a go at it. I have physics to do.

I'm not at all in favor of one group of people (a governing body) deciding that some people can own all the guns (people literally controlled by said government) while other people cannot own all the guns (the constituents of the governing body).

I.e. it's fucked up that Congress says only the military can have all the guns, but the citizens at large cannot. Congress controls the military, they do not control the citizens.
That's fucked up, and a recipe for slaughter. Sure, we have "good enough" leaders today, but what happens when our leaders are not "good enough?"

Whatever laws and regulations should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their job.

***
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment has been long diluted to nonsense. Citing the 2nd Amendment as anything to do with modern gun laws is misguided, IMO.
The right to a well armed militia was intended to say, "Look, it was right of us to revolt against the King, and we don't trust that the government we're forming wont need to be revolted against in some unseen future." However, as many have aptly pointed out, the notion that anyone owning legal weapons could stand any prayer in hell against the US military is nonsense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amendment is already a sham, and let's not bring it up in a sensible conversation about the current state of gun control, IMO.

[Jack Sawyer]

[oskar]

You know what, if I was a republican right now I'd argue with you all day about how video games cause violence and I wouldn't care how much I embarrass myself, because every second I talk about video games is a second I don't have to address the shooters manifesto; the president's rhetoric; the children in camps; the ICE deportations which sure look a lot like ethnic cleansing; the extrajudicial nature of ICE; the ICE torture accusations, Epstein/Acosta; the impeachment process; the massive escalation of the trade war with China; the continued weapon deals with SA which we know for sure are being used in the ongoing genocide in Yemen; The ongoing election interference and McConnell blocking every bill to protect against it, the resurgence of ISIS in Syria after Trump removed Troops and declared victory...

I'd talk all day about how Wolfenstein creates a climate of hate against good intentioned nationalists as long as I don't have to talk about this:



https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/08/u...ren/index.html

[OngBonga]

"don't have to address the shooters manifesto"

Which one are we talking about here? The right wing nut? Or the left wing nut?

[oskar]

I can't wrap my head around how you think not having certain liberties is a violation of the presumption of innocence. There are tons of things you're not free to do. You can't jack off on the bus. Can't shit on the merry-go-round, can't buy and trade uranium. It's not a punishment that you can't do these things legally, it's because of the mess it causes if you let people do it legally. You try to make a nuclear reactor with household items in your backyard... that's going to cost millions to clean up, so you can't do it. Weapons aren't any different.
You're arguing for an insane libertarian wet dream that will never happen, and you seem to be ok with the status quo which is miles away from your utopia (everyone dies in your utopia... spoiler) But you're firmly against any legislation that would make tiny tiny changes to the current gun laws compared to where we are at and where you want things to be at, even if it would mean a lot less deaths and a lot less terror.

[oskar]

"don't have to address the shooters manifesto"

Which one are we talking about here? The right wing nut? Or the left wing nut?

the one that wrote a manifesto

[boost]

What?
No.
...
What?

We all have to pass various tests and pay a fee to obtain a driver's license.
I don't see that as an infringement of rights. Do you?


For me, the balance is equality and the presumption of innocence. If anyone has the right to own XXX, then everyone has the right to own XXX, provided they meet the same criteria as the first party.
Any public regulatory entity that wants to work out the particulars can have a go at it. I have physics to do.

I'm not at all in favor of one group of people (a governing body) deciding that some people can own all the guns (people literally controlled by said government) while other people cannot own all the guns (the constituents of the governing body).

I.e. it's fucked up that Congress says only the military can have all the guns, but the citizens at large cannot. Congress controls the military, they do not control the citizens.
That's fucked up, and a recipe for slaughter. Sure, we have "good enough" leaders today, but what happens when our leaders are not "good enough?"

Whatever laws and regulations should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their job.

***
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment has been long diluted to nonsense. Citing the 2nd Amendment as anything to do with modern gun laws is misguided, IMO.
The right to a well armed militia was intended to say, "Look, it was right of us to revolt against the King, and we don't trust that the government we're forming wont need to be revolted against in some unseen future." However, as many have aptly pointed out, the notion that anyone owning legal weapons could stand any prayer in hell against the US military is nonsense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amendment is already a sham, and let's not bring it up in a sensible conversation about the current state of gun control, IMO.

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank, armed fighter jet, nuclear bomb, etc. If so, I agree, but I'm also not sure how we're drawing the line in which military/law enforcement armaments we should be entitled to also have.

[oskar]

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank...

I see you're new here!

[Poopadoop]

So on another (sort of) topic. I sat down for coffee with a German colleauge of mine today. Highly educated, very nice guy, yet surprisingly conservative in views. He expressed concern with the immigration situation in Germany. I nodded. He said the welcomng of refugees is a politcal move by Merkel to expunge German war guilt. I got his point but was careful not to agree.

So it seems it is not just Ong who is both bright and xenophobic.

fwiw, I also have an English friend, former student, bright guy, who is sympathetic to immigrants but grew up in a nearly 100% Anglony Saxony area of London and is seeing immigrants move in and is uneasy. I guess with my ethnic background it is hard to sympathize but on some level I kind of get it.

[Poopadoop]

Oh and btw, neither of them think separating children from parents is ok.

[Poopadoop]

I can't wrap my head around how you think not having certain liberties is a violation of the presumption of innocence. There are tons of things you're not free to do. You can't jack off on the bus. Can't shit on the merry-go-round, can't buy and trade uranium. It's not a punishment that you can't do these things legally, it's because of the mess it causes if you let people do it legally. You try to make a nuclear reactor with household items in your backyard... that's going to cost millions to clean up, so you can't do it. Weapons aren't any different.
You're arguing for an insane libertarian wet dream that will never happen, and you seem to be ok with the status quo which is miles away from your utopia (everyone dies in your utopia... spoiler) But you're firmly against any legislation that would make tiny tiny changes to the current gun laws compared to where we are at and where you want things to be at, even if it would mean a lot less deaths and a lot less terror.

There is a quote from twitter which I'll paraphrase: "Americans are brainwashed into thinking they have the greatest thing on earth, and one part of that is the idea that anyone can own a gun. it's not about reason, it's more like a belief in Santa Claus that never got dispellled."

[Poopadoop]

I think growing up in Canada has given me a unique insight into the American pov. There is non-stop messaging (from MSM, from movies, from books) that we got because of our shared culture. It says America is unique, exceptional, and where everyone would live if only they could. The idea that everywhere else is a shithole and you must go to the US to have a good life. It was very weird to us on some level because we lived in another place that was pretty prosperous and didn't have their problems, and so to us seemed just as good if not better. But I don't think Americans ever got any inkling of that message.

I've run into Americans who grew up TEN miles from the Canadian border (a fifteen minute drive) and honestly had no interest in ever even visiting Canada. I got the impression they thought as soon as they crossed the border they would be in some third world country. I've met distant cousins from the US who think Canada is made up of igloos and eskimos. It's so bizarre...

[oskar]

Very few things are about reason. I think to function in the real world you can get very far by just retaining information and being able to follow protocol. You rarely really need to make logical conclusions or know how to test a claim in order to get through life, and having insane ideas is largely inconsequential.
I've always thought religion was the main culprit... I still do, but I do see some very religious people who are able to separate religious and real world thinking... but I still think for less intelligent people religion is often the gateway to "reality is what I want it to be" type of thinking.

[Poopadoop]

There IS reason. They get information and they process it like everyone else. The problem is in the information they get is completely different from what most of us get. America is not a country of dummies it is a country of misinformed and to a fair extent propagandized people.

I lived in the US too and met some very bright people who got the basic idea of "socialism" inasmuch as it meant that's it's not right that people live in filth on the street and die homeless because they had shit parents and no education. But, when I mentioned concepts like universal health care they were like 'omg communism' and it was very difficult to convince them that there was any middle ground between America as they saw and/or idealized it (i.e., the best place ever) and something maybe just a little bit better.

[Poopadoop]

Btw Oskar, and given that I'm sympathetic to your world view...

I grew up in a place almost homogenous in the sense everyone was either caucausian, native american or some combination. It was normal to see a kid with white skin and high cheekbones, or (like me) dark skin and caucausian features. That was a given. But, we never met a kid from the middle east, maybe a few chinese/japanese. But... when a kid showed up from India we all stared at him like he was from another planet. Not that we were'nt open and taught to be so, just that he was so different...

So, if you grew up somewhere in Austria and all of a sudden in the last 10 years you got lots of new neighbours who were all non-Austrian would you at all feel uncomfortable? Because if it were me I might see that.

I'm only asking because I don't know what it was like for others and want to understand.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.

Presumably you don't think I should be allowed to have a fully functioning (armed) tank, armed fighter jet, nuclear bomb, etc. If so, I agree, but I'm also not sure how we're drawing the line in which military/law enforcement armaments we should be entitled to also have.

Whatever the reasons we claim that it's OK for the military to own whatever weaponry, apply that logic to everyone.
I.e. if it's because military personnel are highly trained, well... anyone can be trained.
If it's because the military does rigorous background checks and various training and evaluations of an individuals trustworthiness and ability to remain calm under pressure, then OK... make that same standard a requirement for everyone.

Basically, the military doesn't just put anyone in a pilot seat of a fighter jet. Whatever their criteria are to choose whom is suited can be applied to anyone, whether or not they're enlisted.

[boost]

Whatever the reasons we claim that it's OK for the military to own whatever weaponry, apply that logic to everyone.
I.e. if it's because military personnel are highly trained, well... anyone can be trained.
If it's because the military does rigorous background checks and various training and evaluations of an individuals trustworthiness and ability to remain calm under pressure, then OK... make that same standard a requirement for everyone.

Basically, the military doesn't just put anyone in a pilot seat of a fighter jet. Whatever their criteria are to choose whom is suited can be applied to anyone, whether or not they're enlisted.

The military has an ongoing mission that requires certain tools. While a citizen's aims may necessitate an overlap with the military's tool set, there are certain armaments that there is no justifiable reason for a citizen to own, i.e.: nuclear weapons.

Essentially your answering the how, but I'm asking the why.

[boost]

Btw Oskar, and given that I'm sympathetic to your world view...

I grew up in a place almost homogenous in the sense everyone was either caucausian, native american or some combination. It was normal to see a kid with white skin and high cheekbones, or (like me) dark skin and caucausian features. That was a given. But, we never met a kid from the middle east, maybe a few chinese/japanese. But... when a kid showed up from India we all stared at him like he was from another planet. Not that we were'nt open and taught to be so, just that he was so different...

So, if you grew up somewhere in Austria and all of a sudden in the last 10 years you got lots of new neighbours who were all non-Austrian would you at all feel uncomfortable? Because if it were me I might see that.

I'm only asking because I don't know what it was like for others and want to understand.

I can confirm that that's certainly a sort of ever present background meme in the states. However, I think that many foreigners have a similar misunderstanding: Canada can be Canada without all the baggage because it's got a geopolitical luckbox. Western Europe, Australia, anyone who enjoys the benefits of relatively safe international shipping, etc.

I'm not someone who think's America showed up and did all the work to win the world wars. I know we can have delusions of grandeur. But I think there are a lot of people who enjoy the benefits of having America be the world police, but would never acknowledge this truth.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The military has an ongoing mission that requires certain tools. While a citizen's aims may necessitate an overlap with the military's tool set, there are certain armaments that there is no justifiable reason for a citizen to own, i.e.: nuclear weapons.

If a mission statement is enough for you to trust that someone is not going to misuse WMD's, that's a lower bar than what I envision.

[EDIT] Perhaps a bit of morning snark in there. A mission statement of why someone wants the WMD and some statement of the intent of ownership and intended usage should certainly be a part of the licensing and whatnot.[/EDIT]

Essentially your answering the how, but I'm asking the why.

The answer to "why" is the presumption of innocence coupled with equality in treatment of all humans under human laws.

[Jack Sawyer]

To argue with idiots:

Of course without guns people just stop killing. Look at England they....ok well people started killing each other with knives but they solved that problem! No 0ne, not even a chef can carry a knife or spoof depending on the raid. Now they stopped the killi...wait so what ba guy drove a truck through a bunch of people. At least he didn't use a gun. /S

Your argument is dumb. How many mass shootings has England had in comparison to the States?

Fuck it, compare it per capita even. Compare the violence in the UK and the US, and the outcomes in civilian deaths. And then wake up.

More ppl get killed by people's fist than with an AR.

If we are waking up and wanting to be honest. Let's go full bore here.

I believe you are delusional. Do you have any non made-up stats backing up your position?

374 by rifles

656 by hand to hand

Try again my friend.

He wins, but it's a cherrypicking at its finest. The argument is not to ban ARs, it encompasses all guns. He made it about ARs, then argued against it. The graph clearly shows, if you take gun deaths and non-gun deaths into account, the massive difference that a tool made to kill makes. Ratio being close to 11:3