# San Francisco brands NRA a domestic terrorist organization



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Well, Folks, it seems that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is up to it's usual antics again.  The last time, they were trying to impose PC terms for criminals and drug users to protect them from discrimination and label them a "protected group".
Now it's calling an organization that protects the constitutional rights of American citizens a "domestic terrorist organization".  Maybe they haven't heard of the groups that call themselves "Antifa" or people who think of themselves as "Liberal Progressives", but there several other groups causing more harm to the safety of the US then the NRA.

It won't be long before the people from Florida start calling San Francisco "the crazy capital of America".  If the SF Board of Supervisors keep this behavior up, we will have to label them a "domestic terrorist group".

This is what our world is starting to become.  A world where we protect people who attack positive values and commit violence while condemning those who work to protect our rights and make the world a better place.

Feel free to share your opinions but try to stay on topic.

*San Francisco just passed a resolution calling the NRA a ‘domestic terrorist organization’*

Source: The Washington Post

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution Tuesday declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization” and urging the city to examine its financial relationships with companies that do business with the group.

The sharply worded declaration noted recent acts of gun violence, including the July shooting that killed three people, all younger than 26, at a food festival in Gilroy, Calif., south of San Francisco.
“The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence,” it read. “The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence, and … the leadership of National Rifle Association promotes extremist positions, in defiance of the views of a majority of its membership and the public, and undermine the general welfare.” 
The resolution, adopted unanimously by the board’s 11 supervisors, notes many of the statistics that make the United States stand out in terms of gun violence, stating that the country’s gun homicide rate is “25 times higher than any other high-income country in the world” and that 36,000 people in the United States die in gun-related incidents every year, an average of 100 per day.

It also said the city would assess its financial and contractual relationships with vendors that do business with the NRA.

“The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization,” it noted.

The news of its passage quickly drew attention from conservatives and right-leaning media outlets.

Supervisor Catherine Stefani told reporters that she had decided to write the declaration after the shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival. A gunman there killed a 6-year-old, a 13-year-old and a 25-year-old before taking his own life. The mass shooting was followed within days by massacres in El Paso, where a gunman killed 22 people, and Dayton, Ohio, where a man killed nine people.

“The NRA conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and most importantly aggressively tries to block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed on any level, local state or federal,” Stefani said, according to KQED. “When they use phrases like, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands’ on bumper stickers, they are saying reasoned debate about public safety should be met with violence.” 

Stefani told The Washington Post that she believed the group had earned the designation as a “terrorist organization.” 

“They should reasonably know by now that they are fueling the hate fire in this country,” she said. “People are dying, and they continue to stand in the way of reform.” 

Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the NRA, called the resolution a “reckless assault on a law-abiding organization, its members and the freedoms they all stand for.” 
“This is just another worthless and disgusting ‘sound bite remedy’ to the violence epidemic gripping our nation,” she said. “We remain undeterred — guided by our values and belief in those who want to find real solutions to gun violence.” 

The NRA has been at the center of political tensions in recent years as horrific acts of gun violence continue to regularly punctuate the political conversation. New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, is investigating the group’s finances over its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit group.

Lawrence B. Glickman, professor of history at Cornell University, said it was unusual for governments to orchestrate boycotts of private entities.

“Municipalities in the era of the American Revolution called for ostracism or boycotting of individuals who violated the non-importation movement by using, for example, British tea,” he wrote in an email. “Those might be the clearest antecedents for the SF Board of Supervisors decision.”


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

I wouldn't go so far as to classify them as a domestic terrorist group myself, though they are a lobbyist group representing gun manufacturers, and therefore they do need to have their tax exempt status revoked.



morvoran said:


> “The NRA conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and most importantly aggressively tries to block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed on any level, local state or federal,” Stefani said, according to KQED.


This is a good point.  Support for certain gun control legislation (such as universal background checks) is nearly unanimous across party lines, and the NRA stands opposed to democracy in that way.  A sale is a sale to them, no matter if it's a bolt-action hunting rifle going to a collector, or an AR-15 going to a person on the FBI's most wanted list.  The profit motive has no morality built in to it by default.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Support for certain gun control legislation (such as universal background checks) is nearly unanimous across party lines, and the NRA stands opposed to democracy in that way. A sale is a sale to them, no matter if it's a bolt-action hunting rifle going to a collector, or an AR-15 going to a person on the FBI's most wanted list. The profit motive has no morality built in to it by default.



The problem with universal background checks is that they only work if ALL people are ONLY able to buy guns through legal means such as at a gun shop where a background check will be performed.  If I go to a back alley and buy a black market gun, the seller won't give a damn if I'm a felon, clinically insane, or what I'm going to use it for.  If a criminal wants to get a gun, they're going to get a gun.

The NRA is an "all or nothing" group when it comes to the second amendment as they believe EVERYONE has a right to protect themselves from other people intending to do them harm or a tyrannical government.  

It is not the NRA going around shooting people or influencing mass shooters.  That is the fault of society.  Maybe instead of pointing fingers at the NRA, San Francisco should point at themselves.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The problem with universal background checks is that they only work if ALL people are ONLY able to buy guns through legal means such as at a gun shop where a background check will be performed.  If I go to a back alley and buy a black market gun, the seller won't give a damn if I'm a felon, clinically insane, or what I'm going to use it for.  If a criminal wants to get a gun, they're going to get a gun.


If a criminal wants to commit murder, they're going to commit murder.  That doesn't mean murder should be legalized.  Universal background checks would allow us to start taking "back-alley" sellers off the streets and jailing them.  As it stands now, you can legally sell a gun to a person who you know is a terrorist/murderer and get of scot-free as long as it can't be proven that you had that knowledge in advance.



morvoran said:


> The NRA is an "all or nothing" group when it comes to the second amendment as they believe EVERYONE has a right to protect themselves from other people intending to do them harm or a tyrannical government.


The "all or nothing" mentality is precisely what's keeping us from addressing the problem in its various forms.  We can't be selling AR-15s to every violent ex-convict or homeless guy rambling to himself on the bus.



morvoran said:


> It is not the NRA going around shooting people or influencing mass shooters.


You're right, they're just the people promoting availability of weapons to mass shooters and preventing the government from moving on legislation to stop them from doing so.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If a criminal wants to commit murder, they're going to commit murder. That doesn't mean murder should be legalized.


 No, but the laws against murder don't stop people from murdering, do they?  Even with the punishment of death, people still kill others.  It's a problem of society, not guns.



Xzi said:


> Universal background checks would allow us to start taking "back-alley" sellers off the streets and jailing them. As it stands now, you can legally sell a gun to a person who you know is a terrorist/murderer and get of scot-free as long as it can't be proven that you had that knowledge in advance.


 Oh, yeah, they're going to tell criminals that selling guns in back alleys is not legal, and they're just going to stop all together and sing a happy tune.  No more mass shootings or gun deaths.  The world will, finally, be at peace forever.  Right.  

Wrong.  People will still be able to buy illegal firearms.  It's a problem of society, not guns.




Xzi said:


> The "all or nothing" mentality is precisely what's keeping us from addressing the problem in its various forms. We can't be selling AR-15s to every violent ex-convict or homeless guy rambling to himself on the bus.


 Why are ex-convict's or homeless guys rambling to himself on the bus wanting to buy guns for?  To hurt someone or to protect themselves?  If it's the first one, then it's a problem of society, not guns.



Xzi said:


> You're right, they're just the people promoting availability of weapons to mass shooters and preventing the government from moving on legislation to stop them from doing so.


 As long as we have a second amendment, everybody has a right to bear arms.  I can't confirm what causes a mass shooter to do what they do, but I am sure it's a problem of society, not guns.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's a problem of society, not guns.


"It's a problem of gun culture, not the guns themselves."  To some extent I'd agree, but that doesn't mean we need to be providing easy access to guns for people who would otherwise fail background checks.  Both societal problems and problems with our gun laws need to be addressed, one does not invalidate the other.


----------



## PityOnU (Sep 6, 2019)

Honestly, the tech capitals of the USA (SF, Seattle, Austin) are just batshit insane and have no idea what they are doing.

I'm saying this as a tech bro currently living/working in the Bay Area: the ultra-liberal mentality fostered by the culture of most of the large employers (tech companies) out here does not work and results in coddled individuals who are incredibly out of touch with reality and have more money than sense. They then elect officials.

That being said, I like money more than sense, so out here I will stay.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Both societal problems and problems with our gun laws need to be addressed, one does not invalidate the other.


 Of course not because gun laws will not fix societal problems, but fixing societal problems can alleviate the need for gun laws.  Unfortunately, labeling the NRA as a terrorist org will do nothing for societal problems.  
If San Francisco can start work on fixing the drug problem and fecal matter on the streets issue while spending less time blaming others, maybe the social problems there will improve.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Of course not because gun laws will not fix societal problems, but fixing societal problems can alleviate the need for gun laws.


There are a million different societal problems to fix, and none of the solutions are fast or inexpensive to implement.  Not to mention one of those problems is the glorification of and obsession our society has with both guns and crime.  Meanwhile, small changes like the ones Wal-Mart recently implemented can have a big impact on gun violence, but they've also called for Congress to pass more common sense legislation.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not to mention one of those problems is the glorification and obsession our society has with both guns and crime.


 how about poverty, homelessness, and lack of fathers in the homes causing our youth to lack moral character and continue into adulthood without proper guidance?  Those are bigger issues that need to be fixed and lead to the problems you mentioned.



Xzi said:


> Meanwhile, small changes like the ones Wal-Mart recently implemented can have a big impact on gun violence, but they've also called for Congress to pass more common sense legislation.


Of course, trying solutions that have never worked and then throw money at the other problems to make them go away, but instead, just escalates them.  

Just FYI, Walmart is just doing that to gain liberal support to help them destroy our economy even more.  Did you happen to catch the part where they said they were going to sell their remaining stock?  If they really cared, wouldn't they remove the guns and ammo instead of selling them?  Seems like your liberal ass got fooled, too.  Congrats on finally showing support for the richest retail corporation in America.  Enjoy your cheap China-made goods.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> how about poverty, homelessness, and lack of fathers in the homes causing our youth to lack moral character and continue into adulthood without proper guidance?  Those are bigger issues that need to be fixed and lead to the problems you mentioned.


Big problems certainly, but these are all features of crony capitalism, not bugs.  There are very few politicians willing to confront that reality, which is why it's unlikely anything will be done about it in the next 50 years.



morvoran said:


> Of course, trying solutions that have never worked and then throw money at the other problems to make them go away, but instead, just escalates them.


If these things have never been tried before, how could you possibly know that they don't work?  "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" might be the NRA's slogan, but that doesn't mean it has to be America's.



morvoran said:


> Just FYI, Walmart is just doing that to gain liberal support to help them destroy our economy even more.  Did you happen to catch the part where they said they were going to sell their remaining stock?  If they really cared, wouldn't they remove the guns and ammo instead of selling them?  Seems like your liberal ass got fooled, too.  Congrats on finally showing support for the richest retail corporation in America.  Enjoy your cheap China-made goods.


That's dumb.  I'm still not going to be shopping at Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean they can't have an impact as one of the nation's largest gun and ammo resellers.  Again, leftists buy guns too.  Taking an anti-mass shooting stance shouldn't be controversial to any political party.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Taking an anti-mass shooting stance shouldn't be controversial to any political party.


 Too bad the Democrats cover up most mass shootings by calling them, "gang related violence".  Thats not what I call, "taking a stance".



Xzi said:


> If these things have never been tried before, how could you possibly know that they don't work?


 Maybe because I wasn't born yesterday and because I know stuff.



Xzi said:


> There are very few politicians willing to confront that reality, which is why it's unlikely anything will be done about it in the next 50 years.


 Well, actually, there are a lot of politicians that know reality but just look the other way, they're called Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?  They can't fix these problems and stay in power.  As long as there are poor people looking for free stuff, Democrats have a platform to run on.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Too bad the Democrats cover up most mass shootings by calling them, "gang related violence".  Thats not what I call, "taking a stance".


This is so contradictory.  Why are they the only ones pushing for more gun control legislation if they're also the ones supposedly downplaying mass shootings?  AFAIK "gang violence" is counted among mass shootings in the yearly statistics.

Also, I was talking about Wal-Mart taking a stance, not a political party.



morvoran said:


> Maybe because I wasn't born yesterday and because I know stuff.


Oh okay, so you're psychic?  Can I get the numbers for the upcoming lotto?  



morvoran said:


> Well, actually, there are a lot of politicians that know reality but just look the other way, they're called Democrats.


They're called neoliberals (Biden) and neoconservatives (Trump).  Different flavors of the same bullshit.  As long as corporations are making record profits, they couldn't care less about homelessness and poverty driving people to violence.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 6, 2019)

Regardless on stance, the point is most of the gun violence that's in the U.S iirc is homicide usually due to actual gang violence (e.g chicago's high homocide rate). Both extremes when it comes to regulating guns fail to work, as in the situation I mentioned, Chicago has very strict gun laws and the guns being used are likely being smuggled into the city though underground methods. The flip side is the killing in Texas disprove any argument that arming other civilians would prevent the shootings.

So really the only options is to fix societal problems(easier said than done of course), or regulate the aftermarket sales of guns in a similar way that vehicles are registered to a person. If responsible owners became liable for their arms, it shouldn't affect them, but for those who sell guns in the back drop, if a gun ownership registration and tracking were kept in place, could affect the illegal sales of guns if certain levels of punishment were given to bad ownership of guns who did not provide correct transfer of gun title ownership to another person.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Why are they the only ones pushing for more gun control legislation if they're also the ones supposedly downplaying mass shootings?


 Oh, I don't know why does Chicago have the strictest gun control laws while also having the highest gun violence rate?  Because guns are being brought in from other states?  Hmmm, then why don't the other states with less gun restrictions and more guns have a gun violence problem like Chicago?  If the NRA is so bad for not supporting gun control, then why is it that more control causes more gun violence?



Xzi said:


> AFAIK "gang violence" is counted among mass shootings in the yearly statistics.


 Not when the leftists want to push the "white man bad" or "all mass shooters are white" agenda.



Xzi said:


> They're called neoliberals (Biden) and neoconservatives (Trump). Different flavors of the same bullshit. As long as corporations are making record profits, they couldn't care less about homelessness and poverty driving people to violence.


Wrong.  Democrats couldn't care less about homelessness and poverty as long as those issues keep them in power.

I know ignorance is bliss, which is most likely the reason you are a liberal, but maybe you could try looking at things like a conservative for a change.  I understand.  Being red pilled, and seeing the world for what it truly is, can be scary at first, but you will ease into it.  It's like a bad trip when you realize just how blinded you have been of the democrats' lies.



GBADWB said:


> So really the only options is to fix societal problems(easier said than done of course)


 It would be easier to do without democrat policies causing most of the societal issues.  As you said with Chicago and gun control, that sure didn't make things better.  I would go further, but I don't want to go too far off topic like Xzi is trying to do.



GBADWB said:


> regulate the aftermarket sales of guns in a similar way that vehicles are registered to a person. If responsible owners became liable for their arms, it shouldn't affect them, but for those who sell guns in the back drop, if a gun ownership registration and tracking were kept in place, could affect the illegal sales of guns if certain levels of punishment were given to bad ownership of guns who did not provide correct transfer of gun title ownership to another person.


  Maybe we could try what they did in Judge Dredd and have the guns take a dna sample and tag each bullet fired from the gun or make it so only you could fire the gun by use of your hand print.  This would be more effective in stopping shootings.  
Your idea wouldn't work because the seller could claim the firearm was stolen.  It would be hard to prove otherwise.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, I don't know why does Chicago have the strictest gun control laws while also having the highest gun violence rate?  Because guns are being brought in from other states?  Hmmm, then why don't the other states with less gun restrictions and more guns have a gun violence problem like Chicago?  If the NRA is so bad for not supporting gun control, then why is it that more control causes more gun violence?


You answered your own question, the laws need to be universal/nationwide to have a meaningful impact, not localized.  And the country as a whole still ranks way in front of every other first-world nation for both gun violence and mass shootings.  This isn't a Chicago-only problem (obviously).



morvoran said:


> Not when the leftists want to push the "white man bad" or "all mass shooters are white" agenda.


Yes yes, you're always the victim.  



morvoran said:


> Wrong.  Democrats couldn't care less about homelessness and poverty as long as those issues keep them in power.


Are you mentally challenged?  Do you seriously think every billionaire votes Democrat?  Or are you just trying to deflect from the fact that you yourself are a neocon and part of the problem?


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Maybe we could try what they did in Judge Dredd and have the guns take a dna sample and tag each bullet fired from the gun or make it so only you could fire the gun by use of your hand print.  This would be more effective in stopping shootings.
> Your idea wouldn't work because the seller could claim the firearm was stolen.  It would be hard to prove otherwise.





Hence why its a game of responsibility. We need responsible gun owners, and if someone else got hold of your firearm, then you could be marked as an irresponsible owner(possibly barring you from getting guns). If people want to keep their guns, then it's time to be responsible for it. It shouldn't be placed in an easily accessible place where it can be easily stolen. Barring further gun sales is just a light penalty on the person. the court can decide how severe a punishment for negligent handling of arms can be.

I for one think the banning of arms gets us no where, (as banning of a lot of things tend to rarely work). but not doing anything doesn't work either.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2019)

In a city famous for its map of where human shit is on the sidewalks, how good a job is that Board of Supervisors doing? Their opinions are as worthless as their job performance.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Are you mentally challenged? Do you seriously think every billionaire votes Democrat? Or are you just trying to deflect from the fact that you yourself are a neocon and part of the problem?


 Are you ok? You might want to stop drinking that "Jesus juice" the DNC keeps sending you.  It's not doing you any favors.  If you can't see the true agenda of the Democrats and how they are destroying America, then you need help.  Maybe go get that Trump derangement syndrome looked at. If you can't find help at Charter, please, find help somewhere.



Xzi said:


> Yes yes, you're always the victim.


 then why is it the media and Democrats spend so much time discussing the shootings in Ohio and El Paso, but they ignore the violence in Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc?  What's so different about those things? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know.



Xzi said:


> This isn't a Chicago-only problem (obviously).


 of course not, look at Baltimore, New York City, St Louis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.  What do those places have in common?  Hmmm, Democrats in charge, that's what.



GBADWB said:


> I for one think the banning of arms gets us no where, (as banning of a lot of things tend to rarely work). but not doing anything doesn't work either.


 I agree with you, and it won't happen as it's a right that's protected by the Constitution.  What I don't agree with is more restrictions on gun owners when guns and responsible owners aren't the problem. It is society that's the problem, and we need to work on that instead.  No matter how many people you punish for guns, people will still be killed either by finding illegal guns, using knives, sticks, hands, etc.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Are you mentally challenged?





morvoran said:


> Are you ok?


Well, I guess in your own special way, you answered my question.



morvoran said:


> then why is it the media and Democrats spend so much time discussing the shootings in Ohio and El Paso, but they ignore the violence in Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc?  What's so different about those things? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know.


It's driven by viewer interest.  People only tend to care when innocent people get shot, not people affiliated with gangs and/or hard drug dealers.  And even then they only care for a few days at most.  The shootings in Ohio and El Paso were kind of outliers in that they've actually got people fed up with this shit and pushing for change.



morvoran said:


> of course not, look at Baltimore, New York City, St Louis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.  What do those places have in common?  Hmmm, Democrats in charge, that's what.


Yeah, damn that liberal Texas having so many shootings recently!


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 6, 2019)

blaming the left also isn't going to get anywhere as well. Shootings happen because of the extreme gap between the far left and the far right, and media as a whole fearmongering people. This is why I'd rather regulate, or rather, keep watch of after market sales and transfers. It does not infringe on a persons rights to own a gun as no arm was banned. Punishing negligent owners is also interpreted in the 2nd amendment with the clause "well regulated militia." A person who can't keep track of their own weapons is not fit to own them.


----------



## tinkle (Sep 6, 2019)

Calling a movement literally called "Anti Fascism" a terrorist group, that's rich babyboydoll, but the facts here are simple: gun laws save lives. No other 1st World country has shootings on the scale as the US, and most (Australia being a prime example,) have severely restrictive gun control. It's not a coincidence.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> blaming the left also isn't going to get anywhere as well. Shootings happen because of the extreme gap between the far left and the far right, and media as a whole fearmongering people. This is why I'd rather regulate, or rather, keep watch of after market sales and transfers. It does not infringe on a persons rights to own a gun as no arm was banned. Punishing negligent owners is also interpreted in the 2nd amendment with the clause "well regulated militia." A person who can't keep track of their own weapons is not fit to own them.


I constantly hear the argument that "if we didn't have guns, people would just use vehicles for mass killings."  So I never understood why we don't simply regulate the ownership and operation of guns in the exact same way we do the ownership and operation of vehicles.  Licensing and per-gun registration that have to be renewed at regular intervals, the whole nine yards.  It'd be far easier to track who is and isn't a responsible gun owner that way.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 6, 2019)

tinkle said:


> Calling a movement literally called "Anti Fascism" a terrorist group, that's rich babyboydoll, but the facts here are simple: gun laws save lives. No other 1st World country has shootings on the scale as the US, and most (Australia being a prime example,) have severely restrictive gun control. It's not a coincidence.


What the movement labelled terrorist calls itself, has that any relevance?
I agree with you apart from that. Guns kill people, laws don't


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

I guess nobody here has ever heard of "personal responsibility"?  It's a shame that the NRA is being used as a scapegoat to blame them for our societal problems and distract people from the real issues.



Xzi said:


> People only tend to care when innocent people get shot, not people affiliated with gangs and/or hard drug dealers.


  Yeah, tell that to the families without mothers that were shot trying to stop gang violence in their neighborhood.  I guess they were a "gang of mammas", huh?  Oh, wait, in your book, this was their fault.  Here's that story.



Xzi said:


> The shootings in Ohio and El Paso were kind of outliers in that they've actually got people fed up with this shit and pushing for change.


  Because their favorite propaganda news opinion sources told them to be upset.  Funny how you never hear much about all the other mass shootings that happened before or after those two.  Heck, you didn't hear much about the Ohio mass shooter as much  as the el paso shooting either.  I wonder why???  Oh, maybe because he was a left leaning psycho.



Xzi said:


> Yeah, damn that liberal Texas having so many shootings recently!


Hmm,
El Paso, Tx - murder rate per 100,000 for 2019 = 2.76
Chicago, IL - murder rate per 100,000 for 2019 = 24.13

Yeah, that conservative town of El Paso needs all our attention.  They need strict gun laws like Chicago, so they can raise their score....OK




GBADWB said:


> blaming the left also isn't going to get anywhere as well.


No, blaming them won't help.  Removing them from power is what needs to be done.  People need to open their eyes and see who is really against them and remove the trash that leads them.



GBADWB said:


> media as a whole fearmongering people.


 You see it a lot more from liberal media.  Fox News, for example, only fearmongers about the destruction caused by the left which can be proven with evidence.



tinkle said:


> Calling a movement literally called "Anti Fascism" a terrorist group, that's rich babyboydoll


  Yeah, so is calling themselves intolerant of the intolerant or haters of the haters.  It is ironic to say you're "anti-fascism", but then use violence and mob rule to silence the opinions of others.  Hmmm, who does that?  Oh, yeah, fascists do that.



tinkle said:


> gun laws save lives


 Ok, tell that to the people in Chicago that has the strictest gun laws in the US. 



tinkle said:


> No other 1st World country has shootings on the scale as the US


  No other 1st world country has as high a population or more densely populated cities than the US or the level of poverty.



Xzi said:


> I constantly hear the argument that "if we didn't have guns, people would just use vehicles for mass killings."


  How about using knives?  Look at the increase in knife related killings in London.  There was a mass killing where the killer used knives in California weeks ago.  I hate using CNN as a source, but that's the only source you listen to.



Rolf12 said:


> Guns kill people, laws don't


  Yeah, I'm tired of seeing guns floating around by themselves killing people everyday.  I saw a group of guns hanging out in front of a store the other day, I walked across the street to avoid them.  One time, I was mugged by a gun and after I handed it my wallet, the damn thing stabbed me with a knife. I couldn't believe it. 

Give me a break, guns are only a tool.  They are not sentient.  They are not capable of causing harm to others by themselves.  Look up "personal responsibility", this is the problem with gun violence.  Nobody has any anymore.  It's so much easier to blame other people or things than to accept that themselves are the problem.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Give me a break, guns are only a tool.  They are not sentient.  They are not capable of causing harm to others by themselves.  Look up "personal responsibility", this is the problem with gun violence.  Nobody has any anymore.  It's so much easier to blame other people or things than to accept that themselves are the problem.



Guns are tools sure. What are hammers for? Hitting nails. How many nails are hit without hammers? Not so many. 
People are of course crazy to various degrees. Also in countries with tight gun control. Such as here. They just don't have so many opportunities to spray paint the local store with a semi-auto. Or the local food fest. So they don't. Isn't that a nice thing? Some crazy dude faked a kick at me while drove through town on a bicycle. No gun access means that's what he can spend his days doing. No guns no cry. I don't get why people don't get that. Is it because they don't want to?


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2019)

problem is taking away gun rights is a stupid idea to an extent if you do,people will rebel against the US government and try to take over also there is other ways to kill people (knives even snapping necks with a criminal's bare hands) but the most important part the NRA would be a terrorist influance if guns are 100% taken away


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 6, 2019)

What the idiots in charge of that city fail to realize is that the NRA does almost zero to protect gun rights. They have not only rolled over for, but actually endorsed every major gun control legislation to date. I would advise anyone who's a dues-paying member of the NRA to support a different lobbying group if they don't want to be disarmed in a few years.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tinkle said:


> Calling a movement literally called "Anti Fascism" a terrorist group, that's rich babyboydoll, but the facts here are simple: gun laws save lives. No other 1st World country has shootings on the scale as the US, and most (Australia being a prime example,) have severely restrictive gun control. It's not a coincidence.


Were the National Socialists really socialists? Is the People's Republic of China actually a republic for the people? Trump calls himself The Chosen One, does that make it true?


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 6, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> problem is taking away gun rights is a stupid idea to an extent if you do,people will rebel against the US government and try to take over also there is other ways to kill people (knives even snapping necks with a criminal's bare hands) but the most important part the NRA would be a terrorist influance if guns are 100% taken away


Think so? I think and hope you overestimate the number of people crazy about guns.

Then again this is a problem so local to US. And the climate will kill us anyway.

Edit: knives and fists kill one person at a time and does not generate fear to the same extent.


----------



## tinkle (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No other 1st world country has as high a population or more densely populated cities than the US


Wow. I knew the US education system was bad, but just... wow.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Guns are tools sure. What are hammers for? Hitting nails. How many nails are hit without hammers? Not so many.


 You just helped prove my case.  Guns we're not invented to kill people, they were meant to make hunting food easier.  Then they were meant for protection.  No gun manufacturer produces guns intentionally for use in killing people other than those meant for military.  

If I didn't have a hammer close by, I have used pliers, wrenches, boards, etc to hit nails.  Almost any tool can be used for purposes other than what they were intended for. 

If you had a bunch of people close by, like in a night club where it's dark and noisy, how many people do you think you could stab to death before anybody notices?  Quite a few, I'd bet.  Maybe we need more knife laws, or hammer laws, or hand laws.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, tell that to the families without mothers that were shot trying to stop gang violence in their neighborhood. I guess they were a "gang of mammas", huh? Oh, wait, in your book, this was their fault. Here's that story.


I didn't say it was right, I just said that's how it is.  There are too many shootings in the US to keep track of, and a lot of people already think the news spends too much time covering shootings.



morvoran said:


> Because their favorite propaganda news opinion sources told them to be upset.


Hardly anybody under the age of 50 even watches cable news any more, I think you're severely overestimating how much influence they have.  In the same way, the NRA is growing old and more irrelevant, so the public calling for change is finally starting to have more impact (at least on a local/state level).



morvoran said:


> Yeah, that conservative town of El Paso needs all our attention. They need strict gun laws like Chicago, so they can raise their score....OK


Universal background checks would have prevented at least one of Texas' two recent mass shootings, so yeah, they need common sense gun laws just as much as the rest of the nation.  Your callous indifference is noted though.



morvoran said:


> How about using knives? Look at the increase in knife related killings in London. There was a mass killing where the killer used knives in California weeks ago.


America already has a knife crime problem _in addition_ to a gun crime problem.  And besides, I'm not pitching to ban guns, just to better regulate their sale and use, so it's really irrelevant.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

tinkle said:


> Wow. I knew the US education system was bad, but just... wow.


Oh, good argument against my point there. Instead of proving me wrong, you just throw an insult.  I bet you win all your debates


----------



## tinkle (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, good argument against my point there. Instead of proving me wrong, you just throw an insult.  I bet you win all your debates


Nobody wins in an argument against the alt-right like yourself, tbh. You're a walking example of Poe's Law.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You just helped prove my case.  Guns we're not invented to kill people, they were meant to make hunting food easier.  Then they were meant for protection.  No gun manufacturer produces guns intentionally for use in killing people other than those meant for military.
> 
> If I didn't have a hammer close by, I have used pliers, wrenches, boards, etc to hit nails.  Almost any tool can be used for purposes other than what they were intended for.
> 
> If you had a bunch of people close by, like in a night club where it's dark and noisy, how many people do you think you could stab to death before anybody notices?  Quite a few, I'd bet.  Maybe we need more knife laws, or hammer laws, or hand laws.



Just like mentioned above, someone saying something does not make it true. I feel you are really stretching it me proving your point. How good would your nails be hit with pliers? Not very effectively. And someone would soon have pity and ask you to stop.

Guns were invented for potential violence.  And no other personal weapon has such potential for it, at such scale. Why do people want to limit the amount of nukes? They are just for protection. Ask Iran, or Israel. The just wanna hang out.

There are knife laws as well. At least here. And not particularly many stabbings either. Someone did go wild with a fork last year though. It was under control in decent time. Not many people were scraped.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I didn't say it was right, I just said that's how it is. There are too many shootings in the US to keep track of, and a lot of people already think the news spends too much time covering shootings.


 Oh, that's right.  To democrats, black on black crime is just an everyday thing, nothing to see here folks. Move along.  Oh wait.... a white guy just looked at a mexican wrong!!!  Get him!!!!



Xzi said:


> Hardly anybody under the age of 50 even watches cable news any more


  That's why I said "sources".  I know you just woke up, but try to pay attention.



Xzi said:


> In the same way, the NRA is growing old and more irrelevant


So you agree they shouldn't be labeled a "domestic terrorist organization"?



Xzi said:


> Universal background checks would have prevented at least one of Texas' two recent mass shootings


  Pure speculation based on your "feelings". You can't prove that.  It *COULD *have prevented one, not would. He could have found a gun somewhere else.



Xzi said:


> America already has a knife crime problem _in addition_ to a gun crime problem.


  So where's all this "knive control" legislation?  You aren't taking my steak knives away from me.



tinkle said:


> Nobody wins in an argument against the alt-right like yourself, tbh. You're a walking example of Poe's Law.


 Not when your only retort is insults or calling them Nazis. Try a different tactic.  You lefties already used up the word "racist" making it meaningless.



Rolf12 said:


> Just like mentioned above, someone saying something does not make it true.





Rolf12 said:


> I feel you are really stretching it me proving your point. How good would your nails be hit with pliers? Not very effectively.


 Uh, ditto.



Rolf12 said:


> Guns were invented for potential violence.


 Wrong.  They were invented to improve on the sharpened stick, spear, bow and arrow, etc to make hunting easier just as with most technology is created to make life easier.
Edit: unless you're a vegan, then I could see where you're coming from.  They were meant for potential violence against food (or animals as you might call them).


----------



## tinkle (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Not when your only retort is insults or calling them Nazis. Try a different tactic. You lefties already used up the word "racist" making it meaningless.


I don't think words describing systemic imbalance and privilege have any expiration date bar the injustice seeking to be. You're what, 12? So we have another 70 years before the alt-right dies off? I can wait.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> They were invented to improve on the sharpened stick, spear, bow and arrow, etc to make hunting easier


Incorrect. Guns were created for warfare - actually, more-or-less, as a way for peasants to be armed quickly and easily with minimal training unlike an archer who might need to hone their skills for a lifetime.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

tinkle said:


> I don't think words describing systemic imbalance and privilege have any expiration date bar the injustice seeking to be. You're what, 12? So we have another 70 years before the alt-right dies off? I can wait.


A word can become meaningless when everybody uses that word to describe everybody else.  
It won't matter after 2024 when Trump leaves office.  That's when we will go back to the status quo and all the BETAS take over again.  



tinkle said:


> Incorrect. Guns were created for warfare - actually, more-or-less, as a way for peasants to be armed quickly and easily with minimal training unlike an archer who might need to hone their skills for a lifetime.


 Oh, so you can say more than insults.  Good Job.  
Sure the Chinese invented the first so-called "gun" that was more of a small canon and was used in battle, but that can be debated as to being an actual gun or not.  They were tested on living creatures before being used in battles, and those creatures were not humans.  Those creatures were, most likely, used for food.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, that's right.  To democrats, black on black crime is just an everyday thing, nothing to see here folks. Move along.  Oh wait.... a white guy just looked at a mexican wrong!!!  Get him!!!!


Yeah okay bud.  To Republicans, "fatherless black guys" are responsible for 100% of crime, gun-related or not.  Holding black communities up exclusively as a scapegoat does nothing to address the larger problem of gun violence in the US.



morvoran said:


> That's why I said "sources".  I know you just woke up, buy try to pay attention.


And?  You think reading a single article online is enough to brainwash people into pushing for change they don't want?  Grow up.



morvoran said:


> So you agree they shouldn't be labeled a "domestic terrorist organization"?


I said that in the first reply to this thread.  They're not a terrorist organization, but neither do they deserve tax exempt status.



morvoran said:


> Pure speculation based on your "feelings". You can't prove that.  It *COULD *have prevented one, not would. He could have found a gun somewhere else.


True, but then at least we would've taken an illegal seller off the streets.  If we were to regulate guns like vehicles, the shooter never would've been able to obtain a license to own guns in the first place.



morvoran said:


> So where's all this "knive control" legislation?  You aren't taking my steak knives away from me.


We already have knife control laws.  You can't carry a knife beyond a certain length in most places, and in others knives aren't allowed at all.  The comparison is really moronic though.  You can't kill/wound 20+ people in a matter of thirty seconds with a knife.  It's also far easier for the police or other civilians to subdue a knife attacker.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> To Republicans, "fatherless black guys" are responsible for 100% of crime, gun-related or not. Holding black communities up exclusively as a scapegoat does nothing to address the larger problem of gun violence in the US.


 More speculation.  Can you prove they are not responsible?  I would speculate that no republican has ever said they are responsible for 100% of the crime.
Nobody is holding them as scapegoats for the larger problem, but crime statistics show that black men are responsible for over 50% of the murders in the US. (Source: FBI Crime Statistics for 2017) 
Those are not my personal "hateful sentiments", but facts shown through data collection.  Not all of them are gun related violence either, but murders/mass shootings in the black communities are usually listed as "gang violence".
This way, Democrats can go against gun violence/mass shootings without seeming like they're outright racists attacking the black communities.  Dems need their votes to stay in power.



Xzi said:


> And? You think reading a single article online is enough to brainwash people into pushing for change they don't want? Grow up.


 And? You not reading or misunderstanding what I wrote is enough to brainwash you to thinking I implied all sources are "cable news".  Wake up.



Xzi said:


> True, but then at least we would've taken an illegal seller off the streets. If we were to regulate guns like vehicles, the shooter never would've been able to obtain a license to own guns in the first place.


 Wrong, more speculation.  Come on, "man?", at least try to use a little logic in your replies.  how would that take an illegal seller off the streets?
Why don't we regulate knives like vehicles as well.  My fists have been known as "lethal weapons", too.  Should I register them also?



Xzi said:


> We already have knife control laws. You can't carry a knife beyond a certain length in most places, and in others knives aren't allowed at all. The comparison is really moronic though. You can't kill/wound 20+ people in a matter of thirty seconds with a knife.


  You don't know what anybody is capable of.  I already used the "dark, noisy night club" scenario as a possible example of a large group of people being killed by knives.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> More speculation.  Can you prove they are not responsible?  I would speculate that no republican has ever said they are responsible for 100% of the crime.
> Nobody is holding them as scapegoats for the larger problem, but crime statistics show that black men are responsible for over 50% of the murders in the US.  Those are not my personal "hateful sentiments", but facts shown through data collection.  Not all of them are gun related violence either, but mass shootings in the black communities are usually listed as "gang violence".
> This way, Democrats can go against gun violence/mass shootings without seeming like they're outright racists attacking the black communities.  Dems need their votes to stay in power.
> 
> ...



i could easily prove look at thos mass shooters the majority were white men and except for a few had racist manafesto's at least 1 was making explosives so my precieved notion is alot of trouble will happen in the future unless a crackdown on the alt right occurs it has no place in our society justl ike islamic extremeism


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> More speculation.  Can you prove they are not responsible?


Ummm, yeah I can.  Based on pictures of every recent mass shooter in Ohio and Texas.  This issue affects every racial group and every state in the US.



morvoran said:


> Wrong, more speculation.  Come on, "man?", at least try to use a little logic in your replies.  how would that take an illegal seller off the streets?
> Why don't we regulate knives like vehicles as well.  My fists have been known as "lethal weapons", too.  Should I register them also?
> 
> You don't know what anybody is capable of.  I already used the "dark, noisy night club" scenario as a possible example of a large group of people being killed by knives.


There's really no point in continuing this conversation, we aren't going to change each other's minds.  You think the status quo of a mass shooting every couple days is perfectly fine.  I'm content knowing that the majority of the nation has more common sense than that.  Trump and McConnell won't be around to prevent the common sense gun legislation that people are demanding for much longer.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> i could easily prove look at thos mass shooters the majority were white men and except for a few had racist manafesto's at least 1 was making explosives so my precieved notion is alot of trouble will happen in the future unless a crackdown on the alt right occurs it has no place in our society justl ike islamic extremeism


I'm not sure what you're spewing on about as it is hard to make out.  Try reading it back to yourself and see.

The mass shooters in Ohio and Texas mean we need a crackdown on the alt-right, hmm?  You mean all 3?  Wow, watch out folks!  You step out of your house just to check your mail, and you're guaranteed to be a victim of a mass shooting by a whitey!!!!  Geez, fearmonger much?

Maybe look at this photo that shows every mass shooter so far this year (when the photo was created).  Count how many whites vs POC's.  Yep, sure be a lot of white folk there.  Oh, "wait" you say?  Most of those non-white mass shooters were actually "gang related violence" shooters and don't count?  Bull  Give me a break!!!!  The NRA and the alt-right are not domestic terrorist organizations.









Xzi said:


> Ummm, yeah I can. Based on pictures of every recent mass shooter in Ohio and Texas. This issue affects every racial group and every state in the US.


How do you know they weren't black based on the pictures?  They could just have very light skin.  Hmm, seems kinda racist and intolerant to me.



Xzi said:


> There's really no point in continuing this conversation, we aren't going to change each other's minds.


  I don't know what I've seen more this year; "Trumps a racist" or you saying "we aren't going to change each other's minds."  
I don't want to change your mind.  I want you to suffer so next year after Trump wins, I can collect those leftist tears.



Xzi said:


> You think the status quo of a mass shooting every couple days is perfectly fine. I'm content knowing that the majority of the nation has more common sense than that. Trump and McConnell won't be around to prevent the common sense gun legislation that people are demanding for much longer.


 I don't think one mass shooting is fine, but I also don't think lying to the American people that stricter gun laws are going to stop all mass shootings or gun violence, either.  It would be better to focus our tax dollars and efforts on policies that will actually make a difference.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 7, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> .... Also in countries with tight gun control. Such as here. They just don't have so many opportunities to spray paint the local store with a semi-auto. Or the local food fest. So they don't. Isn't that a nice thing? Some crazy dude faked a kick at me while drove through town on a bicycle. No gun access means that's what he can spend his days doing. No guns no cry. I don't get why people don't get that. Is it because they don't want to?




Hold on. What you're saying is that public access to firearms makes for an epidemic of gun crime. I disagree, strongly. There was a time when there was no background check at all when buying a gun. Any store could sell guns the same as they sold lawn mowers or brooms. There were no age limits on who could buy a gun. You could even mail order guns, even Thompson sub-machineguns, from Sears and Roebuck and they shipped to your home. And yet there wasn't a gun crime problem in the USA at all, nothing to compare to the present day, at least not until the US Government passed prohibition of alcohol and gave organized crime a reason to exist on a large scale. And even then (much as now) the violence was contained to those in the contraband trade, i.e. gangs.

Moving ahead of those days, in the 1980's when I went to high school it was normal for boys to go hunting before school, then come to school with their rifles and shotguns still in the gun rack of their pickup truck's back window. Dozens of vehicles in the parking lot, with rifles in plain view. And yet no school shootings occurred. No WalMarts were shot up. And no one was driving around with an illegally made and sold AR-15 killing people.

The availability of guns in the United States has been a constant throughout its history. 100 years ago, there were semi-auto and even full-auto rifles available to the public that could hold high-capacity drum magazines, and there was effectively no regulation or legal limits with respect to who could buy them who could sell them. But we didn't have crazed mass shooters. After organized crime got into the criminal liquor business, though, we started passing gun control laws in 1934 and we keep making those laws more restrictive with each incremental passage of a new "package", and wtf good has it done?? Would universal background checks have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that got media attention?? NOPE.

Anyway, at least where the 'mass shooting' phenomenon is concerned, it's not because people have access to guns. We've always had that here.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 7, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Hold on. What you're saying is that public access to firearms makes for an epidemic of gun crime. I disagree, strongly.
> 
> Anyway, at least where the 'mass shooting' phenomenon is concerned, it's not because people have access to guns. We've always had that here.


Do you honestly see no correlation at all between number of guns and shootings? Whatever is someone's stance on this, probability increases with every gun. Just like your chances to win the local tombola lottery for every ticket you buy. 

Whether or not the general population has changed to such a degree I can't tell. But from what I read about US, society has changed for the harder. Larger income gaps, inequality, trust etc. Could that be reasons? But which should one tackle first?


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wrong.  They were invented to improve on the sharpened stick, spear, bow and arrow, etc to make hunting easier just as with most technology is created to make life easier.
> Edit: unless you're a vegan, then I could see where you're coming from.  They were meant for potential violence against food (or animals as you might call them).



So we at least agree on that. Some common ground is needed for our mutual understanding. Which I actually would like. I'm too old for trying to "win" arguments.
But whatever they were invented for has no bearing on today's use. Morphine was meant to, among others, relieve pain. As well as the oxycontine patch. Which I hear are not exactly being used as the should either. Should we not limit the prescription of such a thing?

For us to continue this discussion I would in all well-meaning recommend everybody too cool their jets and attack less. Its spinning out of hand like many other discussions here.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 7, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Do you honestly see no correlation at all between number of guns and shootings? Whatever is someone's stance on this, probability increases with every gun. Just like your chances to win the local tombola lottery for every ticket you buy.
> 
> Whether or not the general population has changed to such a degree I can't tell. But from what I read about US, society has changed for the harder. Larger income gaps, inequality, trust etc. Could that be reasons? But which should one tackle first?




I'm saying the "mass shooting" phenomenon is not driven by the number of guns owned by civilians. There are obviously other factors motivating certain people to snap and go into a public place and just start killing at random. It doesn't matter how many guns other people own. They only need one gun to do that.

As for gun violence generally though, the number of guns owned by the civilian populace in the US has steadily increased over the last 50 years, but the number of gun homicides has fallen rather dramatically since the 90's (crack epidemic, early to mid 90's, was the peak).


So yeah, I don't see a direct correlation there. Guns don't do anything by themselves. It's cliche to say that, but it's rather vapid and obtuse to dismiss it.


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 7, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm saying the "mass shooting" phenomenon is not driven by the number of guns owned by civilians. There are obviously other factors motivating certain people to snap and go into a public place and just start killing at random. It doesn't matter how many guns other people own. They only need one gun to do that.
> 
> As for gun violence generally though, the number of guns owned by the civilian populace in the US has steadily increased over the last 50 years, but the number of gun homicides has fallen rather dramatically since the 90's (crack epidemic, early to mid 90's, was the peak).
> 
> ...



Well then I agree with that the correlation is not direct. But then again, there are such masses of weapons already in society. Is it possible to control? Will it affect mass shootings? No guarantees there. But it would be irresponsible not to try.

Homicide statistic is of course interesting and positive. But I suspect mass shootings numbers aren't as positive. I just checked and it seems they go up in terms of frequency and mortality.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase

Disregarding stance on gun control. How would you try to counter the mass shooting trend? More guns? More police?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 7, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Disregarding stance on gun control. How would you try to counter the mass shooting trend? More guns? More police?




Less sensational coverage would be a better start than anything else. Don't name them, don't show their photo, don't publish their "manifesto." Don't put them on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine (ok, that was a person who killed & maimed people with a bomb at the Boston marathon, but same problem).

I also think we need some legislation done to exempt the reporting of mental illness from being a HPAA concern for medical professionals. US law already prohibits mentally ill persons from possessing firearms, but this rarely gets reported to the database for background checks.

But no, more guns, more police isn't going to do anything to prevent a psycho from killing people. Mass shootings are their own peculiar phenomenon separate from overall gun violence/homicides, and just based on what I explained above and my experience of having lived in the world before Columbine and this becoming "a thing", the availability of firearms didn't cause it.

Here's some more on the same point I discussed above, i.e. the number of guns is up, the number of homicides is down. I don't see a correlation there, either, by the way. In other words, I don't think there are fewer homicides _because_ there are more guns.
https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 7, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Less sensational coverage would be a better start than anything else. Don't name them, don't show their photo, don't publish their "manifesto." Don't put them on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine (ok, that was a person who killed & maimed people with a bomb at the Boston marathon, but same problem).
> 
> I also think we need some legislation done to exempt the reporting of mental illness from being a HPAA concern for medical professionals. US law already prohibits mentally ill persons from possessing firearms, but this rarely gets reported to the database for background checks.
> 
> ...


Okay. Thanks for input. 
But regarding mental illnesses. Doesn't that presuppose that most people have health care? Or further, actually visit a healthcare centre? How counter the reason for mental illnesses? Because that would be a productive thing to work for.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You see it a lot more from liberal media.  Fox News, for example, only fearmongers about the destruction caused by the left which can be proven with evidence.





morvoran said:


> I want you to suffer so next year after Trump wins, I can collect those leftist tears.



I'm just going to point this out here, why do you have such radical views against the left. Are they all personal POV or influenced by 3rd party? What motivates you so much that you need to beat "the left". You only see fear mongering more from "liberal media" because there happens to be more "liberal media" by number, which doesn't excuse anyone of fearmongering, which was the point I was addressing. Both sides are just adding to the problem and the idea that "they did it more or worse" is a pretty petty statement. The standard should be they shouldn't be doing it at all. Setting up people to hate other people is just one of the major steps. 

You do say you want to fix societal problems right, as you do say its one of the major reasons for the shootings?  If you have this kind of mindset, it will never be eliminated.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> Are they all personal POV or influenced by 3rd party? What motivates you so much that you need to beat "the left".


I was a leftist until a couple of years ago. I was all for killing unborn children, taking away guns (I still do not own one myself), and using violence to silence others.  I have seen the hate, lies, corruption, and destruction to this country caused by the Democrats and their polices.
I finally grew up and realized how these childish ideas influence the likes of antifa and leftist protesters who use violence and hate to push the agenda of the Democrats.
I decided, for myself, maybe we need a more logical solution to our problems as the democrats make promises but do not keep them which only makes things worse.
My city had a republican mayor, and I was all against him and his values.  Now with a democratic in charge, our streets have potholes, homeless is becoming more noticable, crime has gone up, etc., and my city is slowing dying.

Now the democrats want this whole country to become Socialist, and I won't stand for that either.  I'm not here to "change minds" or advocate for the right, but I take a right leaning stance in my discussions.  People need to look at the other side and decide for themselves which is the "RIGHT" side (get  it?).



GBADWB said:


> You do say you want to fix societal problems right, as you do say its one of the major reasons for the shootings? If you have this kind of mindset, it will never be eliminated.


  Do you think taking a gun away from a mentally unstable person will fix the problem?  They'll just find another gun.  Maybe, if this person had a stable life, stable friends, and/or stable family they wouldn't want to kill others.   Do you think we can stop homelessness by making them move to a place where they can't be seen by the public, or should they be given assistance such as housing and training to help themselves out of poverty?  Should we just label the NRA as a terrorist org instead of fixing societal problems? 
If you think putting band-aids on problems is going to make them go away instead of stitching up the main issue, our problems will never be eliminated.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 7, 2019)

I think a shit laden city has got bigger threats than guns to worry about. Like disease.


----------



## ut2k4master (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran is a nutcase


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 7, 2019)

Why this contemptuous tone? I will dry your leftist tears etc etc. So unnecessary. Why?
I believe and hope the republicans will lose. But I would not want to smear it in someone's face. I dislike their style. Not necessary people that vore for them. You are actually contributing to this "hatespeach" that liberal media are accused of here.


----------



## GBADWB (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Do you think taking a gun away from a mentally unstable person will fix the problem?  They'll just find another gun.  Maybe, if this person had a stable life, stable friends, and/or stable family they wouldn't want to kill others.   Do you think we can stop homelessness by making them move to a place where they can't be seen by the public, or should they be given assistance such as housing and training to help themselves out of poverty?  Should we just label the NRA as a terrorist org instead of fixing societal problems?
> If you think putting band-aids on problems is going to make them go away instead of stitching up the main issue, our problems will never be eliminated.



I'm not the one saying to ban guns(quite the opposite if you go back to my posts), I'm not the one saying the NRA is a terrorist org(the opposite, but I never stated it in this thread). I'm just pointing out that having hate towards the other side is contributing to the gap of the far left and the far right. Some people take the statements as jokes, till someone takes it seriously. The whole thing involving 8chan was more or less caused by an echo chamber(whether users were messing around or believe that nonsense) which only got created because 4chan started getting more moderated. All it takes is one user to take the echo chamber seriously to cause the events. Vilifying people(on either side) doesn't help for the sanity of some of these killers. They use any means necessary to justify their actions if there were other people who argued for it (be it intentionally or just for fun)


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I don't want to change your mind.  I want you to suffer so next year after Trump wins, I can collect those leftist tears.


And this is why you and everyone else who supports that orange maggot are the best example of despicable, low-life slime. You don't give a fuck about actual policy, lawmaking or moving forward as a county or society. All you want to do is piss people off. Well, guess what? It worked! People are pissed. Oh, and it takes a fuckload of hypocrisy to say that all you care about is making people infuriated and angry, then bash them for eventually becoming violent when the system that _you_ and others like you have actively kept oppressive to make their lives harder drives them to that point.

And the cherry on top... I'm 100% in favor of gun ownership. People should be able to own a gun, fire it, have fun target shooting, hunting, etc. But the NRA is a corrupt, bloated lobbyist mess that refuses to lift a finger to help in the current crisis, because of _MONEY_. Guess you indeed can put a price on human life and that price is the NRA's bottom dollar. They deserve to be branded a domestic terrorist organization at this point.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

GBADWB said:


> I'm not the one saying to ban guns


 Never claimed you did, but that's what the democrats want.  If you support their policies, that's what is going to happen.  Look at Beta O'rourke wanted forced buybacks of "assault" weapons.



GBADWB said:


> I'm just pointing out that having hate towards the other side is contributing to the gap of the far left and the far right.


  I agree.  Hate, or disagreeing without logical reasoning, is never a good thing.  I do not hate the left or the dems.  I used to be one and can understand where they're coming from.  I feel sorry for them that they are blind to what the policies they support are doing to them (or rather, not doing for them).

I love everybody - "whites, blacks, straight, gays, transgenders, etc"  All these groups are just people to me.  All one group (humans) that can be united to prosper in life and become successful.  I do not believe in identity politics.  The left wants them to separate themselves into individual groups, be victims and complain about imaginary walls or enemies on the other side who want them to fail when it is the left that wants to keep them down.

If you truly want to test which side "the left or right" has hate, go to any event where you have both side separated.  First, go to the left side with a MAGA hat on and see how you're treated.  Next, go to the right side with an "impeach Trump" shirt on.  Let's see which side you end up walking away from without being attacked.

Here's an example of what I'm referencing.  I dare anyone to show a video where the opposite happens.






GBADWB said:


> The whole thing involving 8chan was more or less caused by an echo chamber(whether users were messing around or believe that nonsense) which only got created because 4chan started getting more moderated.


  This is just disassociation of the difference between fact and fiction.  If people blame 8chan, 4chan, 2chan, whatever, that is equivalent to blaming video games for violence.  If someone can't tell the difference between a game character and real human, the game is not the one needing to be looked at.  Just like blaming the NRA and saying they are using dog whistles to make people violent and kill with guns.



GBADWB said:


> They use any means necessary to justify their actions if there were other people who argued for it (be it intentionally or just for fun)


 I also agree.  This is why the left wing media ignores "gang violence" and go towards the white mass shooters that fit their agenda.  They point people's hate in the direction they want it to go rather than where it needs to go.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> And this is why you and everyone else who supports that orange maggot are the best example of despicable, low-life slime. You don't give a fuck about actual policy, lawmaking or moving forward as a county or society. All you want to do is piss people off.


Oh, yes, another insightful person who uses insults to make their point rather than using actual substantial facts that make sense.  If I piss you off, then you are the one with the problem, not me.  I don't have a gun to anybody's head making them read what I say.  Try taking some personal responsibility for once in your life.  Maybe, instead of attacking Trump supporters and focusing your attention to the right (who does care about moving the country forward in a positive way), you could use some of that effort to look behind you to the left and see the ones stabbing you in the back.

Maybe, instead of listening to your leaders on the left and spewing insults at others, do some actual investigation into Trump yourself and see just how "not racist" he truly is.  Look at his accomplishments so far in his time in office then ask yourself how an orange maggot is a despicable, low-life slime that don't "give a fuck" about actual policy, lawmaking or moving forward as a county or society.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, yes, another insightful person who uses insults to make their point rather than using actual substantial facts that make sense.  If I piss you off, then you are the one with the problem, not me.  I don't have a gun to anybody's head making them read what I say.  Try taking some personal responsibility for once in your life.  Maybe, instead of attacking Trump supporters and focusing your attention to the right (who does care about moving the country forward in a positive way), you could use some of that effort to look behind you to the left and see the ones stabbing you in the back.
> 
> Maybe, instead of listening to your leaders on the left and spewing insults at others, do some actual investigation into Trump yourself and see just how "not racist" he truly is.  Look at his accomplishments so far in his time in office then ask yourself how an orange maggot is a despicable, low-life slime that don't "give a fuck" about actual policy, lawmaking or moving forward as a county or society.


Wow, I didn't expect this, you _actually_ made me smile. That answer is so fucking transparent and stupid, I legit grinned. No, I'm pretty sure Trump and his supporters are the issue in our country right now. You already said you don't want to change minds or work together, you only want to further Trump's policies for the pure intention of making people mad. You don't get to sit there and say jack shit about "actual substantial facts" when that's your angle and the so-called leader you support pulls his own out of his ass daily. Fuck you, fuck Trump, fuck the spineless Republicans who refuse to take their party back from a racist backed by a foreign hostile power.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> No, I'm pretty sure Trump and his supporters are the issue in our country right now. You already said you don't want to change minds or work together, you only want to further Trump's policies for the pure intention of making people mad. You don't get to sit there and say jack shit about "actual substantial facts" when the so-called leader you support pulls his own out of his ass daily. Fuck you, fuck Trump, fuck the spineless Republicans who refuse to take their party back from a racist backed by a foreign hostile power.



Again, accusations without facts to back them up.  People like you are the reason Trump is going to win in 2020.  I hope you have fun come election night.  I'll have my cup ready for them tears (if there is enough room left).


----------



## Daggot (Sep 7, 2019)

Molon Labe


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Again, accusations without facts to back them up.  People like you are the reason Trump is going to win in 2020.  I hope you have fun come election night.  I'll have my cup ready for them tears (if there is enough room left).


Yes, more facts!
He lies incessantly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
He was never cleared of obstruction: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spe...ueller-testify-capitol-hill/story?id=64508660
He paid off a porn star with campaign finances (illegally, which someone else went to prison over already): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_scandal
He continues to obstruct lawful investigations into his tenure as Usurper--I mean "President": https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstru...p-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/
Lets not forget how deeply in bed with Russia some of his picks for advisors were/are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn
His company pockets money from taxpayers and other governments while he has refused to divest: https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/all-the-ways-trump-cashes-in-on-the-u-s-presidency.html/
He forcefully takes funds from military projects without due process (for a "wall" that'll do jack squat, most illegals and materials pass through official ports of entry): https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/pen...ry-schools-to-pay-for-trumps-border-wall.html

LOOK AT ALL THE TEARS, THEY'RE POURING OUT! GET THAT CHALICE OF YOURS AND DRINK! DRINK THE FUCKING TEARS!


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Yes, more facts!



See there?  You can have a discussion that contains more than childish insults.  I knew you could do it.  I'm so proud of you.  Pat yourself on the back.  But just to point out, this was the first time you used facts as the other times were your opinions.

I can't comment on the lies.  Maybe they were more misleading than lies, I can't say without further research. 

He can't be guilty of obstruction if there was no crime to obstruct.

He didn't pay off the porn star, his unethical lawyer that went to prison did.

His advisors were guilty, not Trump. If you hired someone, should you be guilty of their crimes they commit behind your back that you weren't aware of?

Trump is using military funds to protect the border as a Commander in Chief is supposed to protect us from being invaded. 

Trump signed over his businesses to trusts before taking office.  He is not in control of what they do or who they do business with. 

Let the CBP workers who actually work at the border tell you just how effective the wall is, not your corrupt Democrat leaders.  The same leaders who happened to want an "unnecessary" wall in the past themselves.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I can't comment on the lies.  Maybe they were more misleading than lies, I can't say without further research.


Lookin' a lot like lies for the most part to me.


morvoran said:


> He can't be guilty of obstruction if there was no crime to obstruct.


Oh, bullshit. The ONLY reason he's not in jail right now is the (for him) fortunate federal position of not charging a sitting President with a federal crime. He was NOT exonerated from wrongdoing and obstruction.


morvoran said:


> He didn't pay off the porn star, his unethical lawyer that went to prison did.


With his campaign finances and shreds of evidence to suggest Trump may have directed that.


morvoran said:


> His advisors were guilty, not Trump.


He picked them, he wanted members who had ties to Russia and who would let him do what he wanted. And when they got in Trump's way, he fired them. Obstruction of a federal investigation, anyone?


morvoran said:


> Trump is using military funds to protect the border as a Commander in Chief is supposed to protect us from being invaded.


WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE FUNDS. And "invaded," really? What kind of tinfoil hat shit are you getting fed? There's less illegal immigration at the border than ever. Most illegals these days come from people overstaying their Visas. Further to that point, claiming a false national emergency to get his way is petulant.


morvoran said:


> Trump signed over his businesses to trusts before taking office.  He is not in control of what they do or who they do business with.


A _trust_? Funny name to call that, handing it off to his children, who have high-ranking positions not only within the company, but the government now. Trump has effectively done just about nothing to dissuade accusations of a conflict of interest.


morvoran said:


> Let the CBP workers who actually work at the border tell you just how effective the wall is, not your corrupt Democrat leaders.  The same leaders who happened to want an "unnecessary" wall in the past themselves.


Oh my fucking lord, how many times do I have to read that non-starter...? You mean the The Secure Fence Act of 2006? Which was passed in a bi-partisan fashion under a Republican President, under a GOP-controlled House and Senate? At a time when a border fence was _actually_ a better idea over a decade ago? Just shows me you and your Republican friends are over a decade behind everyone else.


----------



## VartioArtel (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, but the laws against murder don't stop people from murdering, do they?  Even with the punishment of death, people still kill others.  It's a problem of society, not guns.



I'm going to stop here, as I recently had a chat with a friend about just this.

The problem is that we live in an extremely capitalist society. I don't know about other countries, but it's pervasive enough in America that anything and everything's basically capitalism. Presidential candidates are almost down to a capitalistic level, and the more money thrown the higher the odds, it seems.

Why do I mention this?

You mention its a problem of society, and when you break it down, its a problem of mental health. And mental health falls under general health plans. If health costs - including mental - went down, it means that there'd be a higher chance of preventing shootings. But at the same time, in order to do that, you'd have to threaten companies capital - in short, you'd be fighting against capitalism.

It's a vicious cycle, as the NRA lines politicians pockets, the politicians protect the NRA. The insurance companies line the politicians pockets, and the politicians protect them. Because medical costs are so high, people are more likely not to get the mental aide they need to prevent them devolving into killers. Then the killers go and purchase guns. These people with the guns commit murders, which drive more into mentally unhealthy territory, and to feel more comfortable, they buy guns. This means that the three form a triangular relationship, and the key theme of it all is capitalism.

Capitalism is a corruptive force in our country, and by defending companies instead of the individuals, it's created a vicious cycle. Honestly, I agree with SF in this case. Their approach is a wee bit on the extreme, but they are right that the NRA does indirectly promote violence by attempting to intercede in politics by lining pockets.

We can argue for days about Prohibiting guns or not, but I would hope we can all agree the true root of the cause is capitalism. This country was not founded a capitalist one, in fact throughout the original colonies, there weren't all that many big corporations, there wasn't that much sway to be held. 

Capitalism itself isn't bad, unless it isn't checked, which is the problem - it isn't - more often than not it buys out any form of competition/threats...


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> He was NOT exonerated from wrongdoing and obstruction.


 Mueller and his team could not exonerate Trump because they were collecting evidence to show he was guilty, not that he was innocent.  As the report has shown Trump to not be guilty of collusion, you shouldn't keep listening to Nonsense Nancy and NADler.  Their Trump derangement syndrome is off the charts.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> With his campaign finances and shreds of evidence to suggest Trump may have directed that.


 Doesn't matter if Trump wasn't compliant to it.  Shreds of evidence, huh?  The only evidence is the unethical lawyer that is in prison right now.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> He picked them, he wanted members who had ties to Russia and who would let him do what he wanted. And when they got in Trump's way, he fired them. Obstruction of a federal investigation, anyone?


 So if you hire somebody to work at McDonald's with you and they rob a bank, you are guilty of robbery as well?  SMH.  Get real.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE FUNDS


  Hmm, I don't think the Supreme Court agrees with you on this verdict.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> And "invaded," really? What kind of tinfoil hat shit are you getting fed? There's less illegal immigration at the border than ever. Most illegals these days come from people overstaying their Visas. Further to that point, claiming a false national emergency to get his way is petulant.


Invaded by illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate into our society and wave their country's flags instead of "Ole Glory". There's less illegal aliens now because of the wall that has been built and because Mexico is finally doing something to stop them.  The overstaying Visa crap accounts for half of the illegals and not most.  There isn't a full count on the illegals here that crossed the border as the number of illegals here is *estimated to be between 20 and 40 million. *



Arecaidian Fox said:


> A _trust_? Funny name to call that, handing it off to his children, who have high-ranking positions not only within the company, but the government now. Trump has effectively done just about nothing to dissuade accusations of a conflict of interest.


  Doesn't matter who runs the businesses as long as it's not Trump.  You can't say he's making profits from his presidency if he's not in charge.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Oh my fucking lord, how many times do I have to read that non-starter...? You mean the The Secure Fence Act of 2006? Which was passed in a bi-partisan fashion under a Republican President, under a GOP-controlled House and Senate? At a time when a border fence was _actually_ a better idea over a decade ago? Just shows me you and your Republican friends are over a decade behind everyone else.


 Democrats wanted a wall.  Trump comes into office, Democrats don't want a wall. Hmmm, funny how that works.


----------



## tinkle (Sep 7, 2019)

I can't wait for all you alt-right boys to get locked up for treason once we have a sane leader again <3


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 7, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Mueller and his team could not exonerate Trump because they were collecting evidence to show he was guilty, not that he was innocent.  As the report has shown Trump to not be guilty of collusion, you shouldn't keep listening to Nonsense Nancy and NADler.  Their Trump derangement syndrome is off the charts.


Heh, I can just see you there, plugging your ears saying. "La-la-la, no collusion, not guilty, la-la-la!" Please. Even Mueller himself has point-blank said Trump is not clean in this. It's fucking cut and dry, he's guilty of obstruction at the LEAST.


morvoran said:


> Doesn't matter if Trump wasn't compliant to it.  Shreds of evidence, huh?  The only evidence is the unethical lawyer that is in prison right now.


Funny how lots of people around the Usurper, while doing things that directly benefit the Usurper, are guilty of federal crimes and lots and lots of hearsay leads back to that fat orange fuck.


morvoran said:


> So if you hire somebody to work at McDonald's with you and they rob a bank, you are guilty of robbery as well?  SMH.  Get real.


Yeah, that's not even close to what I said. Though I guess it's appropriate that you'd compare the government of the United States to a McD's, it's about the amount of respect most modern right-wingers give it now. Gods, I miss the days when Republicans had actual values and morals to stand behind.


morvoran said:


> Hmm, I don't think the Supreme Court agrees with you on this verdict.


Constitutional separation of powers states that he should not have that ability. Guess Trump really enjoys screwing over both the military _and_ our core values of government. But yeah, just keep saying he's not a corrupt asshat.


morvoran said:


> Invaded by illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate into our society and wave their country's flags instead of "Ole Glory". There's less illegal aliens now because of the wall that has been built and because Mexico is finally doing something to stop them.  The overstaying Visa crap accounts for half of the illegals and not most.  There isn't a full count on the illegals here that crossed the border as the number of illegals here is *estimated to be between 20 and 40 million.*


Immigration has been slowing for a long time, some wall going up did little to impact it overall. It was more a double fence anyway, less a wall. Further, your argument is partially based on flags and national origin? Fuck off. We're a nation of immigrants, my family immigrated here before WWII. Also, the only flags that should be illegal are those of defeated and/or enemy nation states, like the Confederacy or Nazi Germany. You should get locked and tossed for displaying the "stars and bars" and other similar flags outside of an educational setting.


morvoran said:


> Doesn't matter who runs the businesses as long as it's not Trump.  You can't say he's making profits from his presidency if he's not in charge.


The hell I can't. And ANYONE with even a partially objective mindset can see he's profiting off his stint in office. My only conclusion is that you specifically must be an idiot.


morvoran said:


> Democrats wanted a wall.  Trump comes into office, Democrats don't want a wall. Hmmm, funny how that works.


Right, because reality exists in a static bubble and things never change. It was a set of fencing that went into law over a _decade_ ago. Secure border walls and fencing is a fine and great idea, but don't make it a racist agenda out of it and certainly don't STEAL MILITARY FUNDING


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 7, 2019)

Do you guys want to know the truth? The true destruction of this democracy?
Party loyalty and not questioning what you find, or not having your own thoughts.
And Morvoran is a great example of this. He just finds everything he can to support his side, but turns a blind side to everything wrong that side does, and is fully incapable of questioning true motives or reasons to why things happen. And lacks critical thinking skills to reflect on the people he blindly follows. Perfect to be used as a political right wing pawn in a world were people value loyalty over honesty and truth.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Sep 7, 2019)

@morvoran why do you keep making these threads?

@ Mods why is this rubbish content not being filtered out for derailing the main topic of this website?

They're all the same. It's always [insert news about some reform] and then a blatant display of your lack of reading comprehension when you report on it with "look at leftists protecting terrorists and blaming [insert institution that poses an actual threat to our society here] instead, sipping on leftist tears lol". Frankly, each time you do this you show an even deeper lack of analytical thinking by just adapting your formulaic response. Aside from the plethora of giveaways that you are brainwashed into thinking the constitution is the word of God or something, this website really shouldn't endorse threads where the only purpose is to start shit.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 7, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> I'm going to stop here, as I recently had a chat with a friend about just this.
> 
> The problem is that we live in an extremely capitalist society. I don't know about other countries, but it's pervasive enough in America that anything and everything's basically capitalism. Presidential candidates are almost down to a capitalistic level, and the more money thrown the higher the odds, it seems.
> 
> ...


Crony Capitalism is what you're talking about.

Capitalism is
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.



So lets say you own a farm and grow crops like wheat and corn. Do you believe that you can choose to do whatever with what you grow? Should be able to eat the food you grow? If yes then you are a Capitalist. Do you believe that the extra food left over that you don't eat, that you should be able to have the freedom to sell it and make a profit for yourself. If yes then you are a capitalist.

Or do you believe government should come in and tell you that you can't eat your own food you grow without permission from us, and you can't sell it for your own profit. We are in charge and we own the means of production. We choose what to do with the food you slaved away to grow and not you.


Do you believe that the car you buy with your hard earned money is your property, that others can't claim ownership. Or should others claim ownership to do whatever they want with it, to tell you what you can or can't do with the stuff you bought with your own money.

Lets say you make a video game should you claim ownership, and your creation is your property. Basically Intellectual Property, that you can sell to make a profit. Or should government claim ownership of the games you create? Wouldn't that piss you off someone else claiming ownership of what you create.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 7, 2019)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Even Mueller himself has point-blank said Trump is not clean in this. It's fucking cut and dry, he's guilty of obstruction at the LEAST.


 Did you see Mueller at that Congressional hearing?   He had no idea where he was, let alone what was going on with "his" report.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Gods, I miss the days when Republicans had actual values and morals to stand behind.


 Yeah,back in the Reagan era before all the RINOs took over.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Constitutional separation of powers states that he should not have that ability.


 Ever heard the term "Commander-in-Chief"?



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Immigration has been slowing for a long time,


 Legal immigration has because they've been sneaking across the border.



Lucifer666 said:


> @morvoran why do you keep making these threads?


 Because this is the "
*World News, Current Events & Politics" *subsection.  What other type of threads should I be posting here?  
Oh, and good job of staying on topic by asking why everyone is going off topic and then going on an off topic rant.

The main point a lot of people are missing here is that instead of fixing underlying issues, the SF Board is pointing fingers at the NRA.

When will we, as a nation, start looking within to fix the problems rather than playing the blame game.  We need to stop labeling groups as terrorists if they're not going out and beating or killing people themselves, trying old tired solutions that don't work, and get back to doing what works by rebuilding the family, encouraging parents to stay together to teach their kids values, and stop with all the fighting.

The NRA is not the enemy, guns are not the enemy, Trump is not the enemy.  we all are our own enemies as we're the ones fighting ourselves.  We need lawmakers who use logic instead of emotions when we make policies just as the founding fathers of the US did.  Otherwise, we will never Make America Great Again.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 8, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Did you see Mueller at that Congressional hearing?   He had no idea where he was, let alone what was going on with "his" report.


I watched the whole thing. He didn't want to be there, regardless of who was in charge of the hearing. He already made his report. I can appreciate the fact he didn't feel like getting drawn further into this goddamn circus of a Presidency.


morvoran said:


> Yeah,back in the Reagan era before all the RINOs took over.


Yeah, back when Republicans (especially Regan) would have been would have been considered too liberal for the modern party. Funny how people keep putting that era up on a pedestal.


morvoran said:


> Ever heard the term "Commander-in-Chief"?


Ever heard of the Constitution of the United States? It's kinda this thing we have that helps determine what laws we have and what a sitting state leader can (and in Trump's case, mostly _can't_) do. Might want to learn about that one sometime.


morvoran said:


> Legal immigration has because they've been sneaking across the border.


Immigration _across the board_ has fallen, both legal and illegal.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 8, 2019)

tinkle said:


> Nobody wins in an argument against the alt-right like yourself, tbh. You're a walking example of Poe's Law.


Not to mention the Dunning-Kruger effect.


----------



## weatMod (Sep 8, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The problem with universal background checks is that they only work if ALL people are ONLY able to buy guns through legal means such as at a gun shop where a background check will be performed.  If I go to a back alley and buy a black market gun, the seller won't give a damn if I'm a felon, clinically insane, or what I'm going to use it for.  If a criminal wants to get a gun, they're going to get a gun.
> 
> The NRA is an "all or nothing" group when it comes to the second amendment as they believe EVERYONE has a right to protect themselves from other people intending to do them harm or a tyrannical government.
> 
> It is not the NRA going around shooting people or influencing mass shooters.  That is the fault of society.  Maybe instead of pointing fingers at the NRA, San Francisco should point at themselves.


unfortunately the NRA is  controlled opposition   , they really  have nothing


----------



## morvoran (Sep 8, 2019)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> He already made his report. I can appreciate the fact he didn't feel like getting drawn further into this goddamn circus of a Presidency.


  Yeah, ok, he had no idea what was in the report.  He had no clue what the findings actually were or any idea what the report was about.  Hell, he didn't have any clue who Fusion GPS was, and they started that whole mess.  I agree with you that he shouldn't have been drawn further in something he had no involvement in.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Yeah, back when Republicans (especially Regan) would have been would have been considered too liberal for the modern party. Funny how people keep putting that era up on a pedestal.


  Umm, this can be debated as either true or false.  Reagan stated he didn't leave the democrat party, they left him.  Same could be said for a lot of republicans today.  They didn't change their views.  The democrats just moved the goal post further left.  That era was a great time for growth and prosperity in the US.  It had its flaws, sure, but it was still a great time.  This is part of Trump's Make America Great Again slogan.  Also, Trump was a liberal also.  He donated a lot of money to the Clintons.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Ever heard of the Constitution of the United States? It's kinda this thing we have that helps determine what laws we have and what a sitting state leader can (and in Trump's case, mostly _can't_) do. Might want to learn about that one sometime.


 I guess the Supreme Court hasn't heard of this "constitution" you speak of either since they gave the OK to use the funds.



IncredulousP said:


> Not to mention the Dunning-Kruger effect.


Hey now, @tinkle did nothing to you to deserve that, but I do agree with you.  Good point.





Arecaidian Fox said:


> Immigration _across the board_ has fallen, both legal and illegal.


 Oh, so you do agree the wall has been working along with Trump's policies.  That's great.  Maybe there's hope for you yet.


Regardless, I don't mind you trying to prove my points further, but let's attempt to get back on topic.  I let @Xzi take me way off topic in this thread, and I would like to get back to it.


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 8, 2019)

Guys, take it down a notch


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Capitalism is
> An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.


Capitalism is an unsustainable economic system based on extracting as much additional value (see "capital") from a trade beyond what something is actually worth. It is usually done by leveraging unfair rules of trade or finite amount of resources, or utilizing other exploitations available to artificially inflate the value received from the buyer. Instead of paying what the product is worth, the buyer pays this _and more_, which causes a one-way flow of money to the seller. Money represents ownership of finite resources, and there are only so many resources; if money flows to one side, the other will run out, hence unsustainable. This is without even mentioning that the more money a particular side or group has, the _more ability they are given to leverage further sales._ Money should flow, like the circle of life, not just pump into one side.


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Sep 8, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, ok, he had no idea what was in the report.  He had no clue what the findings actually were or any idea what the report was about.  Hell, he didn't have any clue who Fusion GPS was, and they started that whole mess.  I agree with you that he shouldn't have been drawn further in something he had no involvement in.


Go figure, you're misquoting me.


morvoran said:


> Umm, this can be debated as either true or false.  Reagan stated he didn't leave the democrat party, they left him.  Same could be said for a lot of republicans today.  They didn't change their views.  The democrats just moved the goal post further left.  That era was a great time for growth and prosperity in the US.  It had its flaws, sure, but it was still a great time.  This is part of Trump's Make America Great Again slogan.


Riiiight, Trump riding on Regan's coattails is a surefire guarantee he's competent, despite every indication  ! Amazing how much a shiny slogan tricks so many people.


morvoran said:


> I guess the Supreme Court hasn't heard of this "constitution" you speak of either since they gave the OK to use the funds.


Afterwards. Doesn't change the fact he violated the Constitution to start.


morvoran said:


> Oh, so you do agree the wall has been working along with Trump's policies.  That's great.  Maybe there's hope for you yet.


Again, misquote.


morvoran said:


> Regardless, I don't mind you trying to prove my points further, but let's attempt to get back on topic.  I let @Xzi take me way off topic in this thread, and I would like to get back to it.


And for a third time, you're using my quotes incorrectly. Have fun.


----------



## smf (Sep 8, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, but the laws against murder don't stop people from murdering, do they?



Neither it seems does having access to a gun, stop you from being murdered. Quite the opposite.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 8, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Guys, take it down a notch


I appreciate what you do for the site but if you find this thread becoming too heated, then I must ask: why are morvoran's constant shit-talking and shitposting allowed? Why do threads only become "toxic" when people point out the bullshit that actual toxic people spread? I don't condone shit-talking or insults, but I do condone calling out bullshit. And I really hate to mention this, but it seems like a great number of mods on this site have a clear conservative slant and it seems like unacceptable content has less of a chance of being locked, removed, or banned if it is conservative-biased. Not to mention the blatant homophobia and ignorance around mental illness; it's frankly quite appalling. This site is hardly a healthy medium of debate. I've seen many good users leave this site because of its increasingly toxic and ignorant atmosphere. Anyway, I really mean you no disrespect, and I truly hope you and everyone else have a wonderful day and live a full, stress-free life.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 8, 2019)

Arecaidian Fox said:


> Riiiight, Trump riding on Regan's coattails is a surefire guarantee he's competent, despite every indication  ! Amazing how much a shiny slogan tricks so many people.


 I added an edit after you started to reply.  Trump was a liberal before also.  He donated to and supported the Clintons.



Arecaidian Fox said:


> Afterwards. Doesn't change the fact he violated the Constitution to start.


  Wow, the whole situation of the Supreme Court giving the OK means he didn't violate the constitution.  Not sure why you're not getting this which is why I said you were proving my points.



IncredulousP said:


> why are morvoran's constant shit-talking and shitposting allowed?


How am I the only one doing what you said and why point me out directly?  On top of that, this has nothing to do with the topic.  The site rules state any issue you have should be DM'd to a moderator, not on the thread itself.  I have only responded to others that respond to me.  I am only having a discussion.  If somebody doesn't like it, they can move on or ignore me.  

Back to the topic at hand....

It's funny how the San Francisco board of supervisors even thinks that it's their job to make non-binding resolutions as this.  It is not their job to designate terrorist organizations.  Their main purpose is to make San Francisco better, which they obviously are not.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 8, 2019)

I'd brand the US military a domestic terror organization.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 8, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I'd brand the US military a domestic terror organization.



I take it you don't live in Hong Kong and are not this guy:


If not, I can see where you're coming from with the tariffs and other stuff.


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 8, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> why are morvoran's constant shit-talking and shitposting allowed? Why do threads only become "toxic" when people point out the bullshit that actual toxic people spread? I don't condone shit-talking or insults, but I do condone calling out bullshit. And I really hate to mention this, but it seems like a great number of mods on this site have a clear conservative slant and it seems like unacceptable content has less of a chance of being locked, removed, or banned if it is conservative-biased. Not to mention the blatant homophobia and ignorance around mental illness; it's frankly quite appalling. This site is hardly a healthy medium of debate. I've seen many good users leave this site because of its increasingly toxic and ignorant atmosphere.



It's best to contain political bullshit in a single section that people can ignore then to have it spill out in USN and GOTC or the rest of the site.

I don't really care about politics and this section is a pain to moderate.
Locking active threads will lead to more of the same threads popping up and the staff being called nazis for locking it.
Removing comments has pretty much the same result.
Not doing anything results in threads becoming flame wars which must be moderated but you know, staff being called nazis for locking it/moderating it.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 8, 2019)

DinohScene said:


> It's best to contain political bullshit in a single section that people can ignore then to have it spill out in USN and GOTC or the rest of the site.
> 
> I don't really care about politics and this section is a pain to moderate.
> Locking active threads will lead to more of the same threads popping up and the staff being called nazis for locking it.
> ...


I see, that makes sense.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 8, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I take it you don't live in Hong Kong and are not this guy:


Tariffs are okay and not an act of violence. If the trading partners don't like it, they can do the same or abandon the trade relationship.

I'm talking about military intervention, encircling of countries as well as threats.
I think you (or somebody else recently) posted the US spending. The amount used for the military (including veteran payments) is just ridiculous. The US could cope with its debt problems by reducing military spending to a level comparable to other nations of that size.
Also, think of the environment: How much resources are needed just to keep the hundreds of off-shore bases operational (test flights etc)? I'm not talking about climate change, I mean just the fact that oil and gas are limited.

The US enemies number one and two (or two and three) are China and Iran. Yet, these countries are some of most peaceful since the establishment of the USA.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 8, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Capitalism is an unsustainable economic system based on extracting as much additional value (see "capital") from a trade beyond what something is actually worth. It is usually done by leveraging unfair rules of trade or finite amount of resources, or utilizing other exploitations available to artificially inflate the value received from the buyer. Instead of paying what the product is worth, the buyer pays this _and more_, which causes a one-way flow of money to the seller. Money represents ownership of finite resources, and there are only so many resources; if money flows to one side, the other will run out, hence unsustainable. This is without even mentioning that the more money a particular side or group has, the _more ability they are given to leverage further sales._ Money should flow, like the circle of life, not just pump into one side.


You mean Crony Capitalism right not capitalism itself. Individuals making corrupt choices.
Capitalism is a system the values private ownership.


Basically your mindset is Humans are inherently evil. The freedom of private ownership will eventually be abused by a few humans that will give into temptation of evil and abuse that freedom to extract value beyond its worth. So it's not Capitalism itself but humans that are the problem. If Humans weren't shitty to each other then Complete Private Ownership is something you would consider. So instead you will control humans, limit their ownership of their own belongings and tell them what they can and can't do.



So my question to you is what is value beyond it's worth? Who gets to decide? You? The People? It's an arbitrary line that will be set and will constantly shift. And whats the best most efficient way to decide worth? If someone creates a phone and creates only a few phones a year to create artificial scarcity to raise prices isn't that their freedom to do so. It's their product they created so they can do whatever they want. And if you don't like what they are doing why don't you exercise your freedom to not buy what they sell?



Resources are finite and the Market Competition puts those finite resources into the most efficient hands, inefficient hands will just waste those limited resources. Compare food prices now to 100 years ago. Not only food is more abundant its way cheaper then before. Instead of having to walk to many different individual specialty stores just to get your groceries, you can now drive to one super market to get everything you need. Instead of making many individual trips back and forth taking a train or bus, you just now put everything in your car only 1 maybe 2 trips for the week. Instead of going to the store everyday to keep your food fresh you can now buy a lot more and store it in your fridge for the week. Food has gotten so cheap and abundant that we now have an obesity epidemic.



Tv's, would you rather have a TV from today or from 40 years ago? You can claim that corporations have gotten so corrupt that TV's are more expensive now. It wouldn't be a true claim because you are not comparing apples and apples. You are getting more for your money today then 40 years ago. 4k resolution, ultra sharp picture, high refresh rates, wide color gamuts, higher peak brightness, hdr. And prices always come down. DVD players were $1000 when they first came out.  Now you can get a blueray for under $100. Better tech for cheaper. How did this happen? And why weren't they able to charge more then what its worth? And what would be its worth? Would you complain that blueray's even at around $100 are too expensive and it should be cheaper? And wouldn't you look like a spoiled whinny brat to poor countries that can't even afford a blueray with you complaining about this?


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 8, 2019)

_Resources are finite and the Market Competition puts those finite resources into the most efficient hands_

Not necessarily. That is wishful thinking. It could just as well be due to corruption, monopoly etc. Which is the case in many cases. Additionally the products can be so complex nowadays and all type of marketing distorts choice.

Food is cheap today. At what price? Ask the chickens, cattles, overfertilized acres. Further, it is well-known that farming is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Quite more so than way back. It's actually more inefficient.

_measured by the amount of energy it takes to produce each calorie of food, the industrial farming system is anything but a lean, mean food-producing machine. In 1940, the average U.S. farm produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil fuel energy it used. By 1974, that ratio was 1:1, according to Richard Manning, writing in his book Against the Grain. These days, the calories-to-calories ratio is more like 3:1_


----------



## tianchris (Sep 8, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Tariffs are okay and not an act of violence. If the trading partners don't like it, they can do the same or abandon the trade relationship.
> 
> I'm talking about military intervention, encircling of countries as well as threats.
> I think you (or somebody else recently) posted the US spending. The amount used for the military (including veteran payments) is just ridiculous. The US could cope with its debt problems by reducing military spending to a level comparable to other nations of that size.
> ...


Money spending is what moved the economy especially the one spend in domestic, they only become problems once too much of the spending is spend outside the country. In military spending the army wage, weapons spending and veteran payment is actually not a problems since the money is used to run your economy especially considering you actually use your own weapon not import it from somewhere else and it is used also as a great advertisement for your product. BTW the idea that China is the most peaceful since the establishment of the USA seems funny since i'm from asia and i could tell south china sea, Taiwan, HK, and some island that being dispute by china, russia, and japan is just a time bomb that keep being delayed by the fact that american still being considered as a threat by China. Especially considering the ever increase military budget by China.


----------



## Searinox (Sep 8, 2019)

I would be ok with the NRA if it were promoting something with COMMON SENSE and included safety integrally to their goals. Imagine an automobile association that would campaign on removing every possible driving safety regulation, no seatbelts, permitless driving, allowing cars on the sidewalk, no speed limits etc. with an absolutist focus on nothing but there being the maximum possible number of cars everywhere. Seriously who the fuck does this? Domestic terrorism org. is not an appropriate term. They don't condone terrorism. Public health and safety menace? Yes.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 8, 2019)

Searinox said:


> I would be ok with the NRA if it were promoting something with COMMON SENSE and included safety integrally to their goals. Imagine an automobile association that would campaign on removing every possible driving safety regulation, no seatbelts, permitless driving, allowing cars on the sidewalk, no speed limits etc. with an absolutist focus on nothing but there being the maximum possible number of cars everywhere. Seriously who the fuck does this? Domestic terrorism org. is not an appropriate term. They don't condone terrorism. Public health and safety menace? Yes.


So in other words, you, allegedly, think the NRA is a terrorist organization to the "nanny state"?  Forget about personal responsibility and the freedom to choose how to live your life as long as it doesn't directly cause harm to others, we have the government to tell us how to live our lives and keep us safe.  I get you. That's just common sense.

I do agree there should be sensible gun laws such as don't kill others unless it's to protect your life, don't randomly shoot up in the air, and don't let toddlers play with loaded guns.  

Sure, these make sense and should not be allowed, and the NRA isn't advocating for these things along with wanting people to kill others for expressing their views, juggle guns in the street, or hitting people over the head with rifles
----------------

People are so focused on the misinterpretations others tell them, that they don't go and look into things themselves and then come up with their own conclusions based on untruths.  This is why the concept of the NRA being a domestic terrorist org was even brought up by the SFBOD.


----------



## Searinox (Sep 8, 2019)

morvoran said:


> So in other words, you, allegedly, think the NRA is a terrorist organization to the "nanny state"?  Forget about personal responsibility and the freedom to choose how to live your life as long as it doesn't directly cause harm to others, we have the government to tell us how to live our lives and keep us safe.



1. I do not believe you didn't see my 2nd last sentence where I said the "terrorist organization" label is inappropriate.
2. https://medium.com/@scottcbusiness/logical-fallacies-series-part-20-f48cb5853877 go down to "Overgeneralization" to the "so what you're saying is..." bit and what those kinds of arguments are. Don't try it. I'm already on to you.
3. On the argument of this being a way to fight the govt. if it ever goes rogue and sicks the military on its own people: you do realize you're talking about the most powerful and sophisticated military force on the planet right? With drones, nukes, stealth, and just about everything you can imagine. Nuff said. The 2nd amendment came to be in a time of muskets and low-capacity slow-loading guns. Even if it's unsuited for the present, it can still be respected, provided common sense moderation be applied. The first amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "bomb!" in a crowd. The 2nd amendment has reach limits too. Everything does.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 8, 2019)

Searinox said:


> 1. I do not believe you didn't see my 2nd last sentence where I said the "terrorist organization" label is inappropriate.


 Yeah, I saw that, but I was referencing the part where you were talking about how the NRA was supporting our rights of personal responsibility, thus making them against the "Nanny state" where the government stops us from running around to protect us from falling and scraping our knees.  You could say their fight for our freedom of personal responsibility makes them terrorist to the "Nanny State".



Searinox said:


> go down to "Overgeneralization" to the "so what you're saying is..." bit and what those kinds of arguments are. Don't try it. I'm already on to you.


 Meh, that's what I do.... still doesn't make my view invalid.



Searinox said:


> On the argument of this being a way to fight the govt. if it ever goes rogue and sicks the military on its own people: you do realize you're talking about the most powerful and sophisticated military force on the planet right? With drones, nukes, stealth, and just about everything you can imagine. Nuff said. The 2nd amendment came to be in a time of muskets and low-capacity slow-loading guns. Even if it's unsuited for the present, it can still be respected, provided common sense moderation be applied. The first amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "bomb!" in a crowd. The 2nd amendment has reach limits too. Everything does.


  You think everyone in the military are mindless drones?  They have minds of their own to fight against tyranny, so the people will have access to all the guns, drones, nukes, etc too.

The Revolutionists were under the same kind of odds even back then. They were overwhelmed by the British by gunpower, manpower, etc, but they were able to make a deal with the French and still beat the Brits back and gained their independence.  I'm sure Russia and China would fight for us against the government if it ever came to it if we made a good enough deal with them.  

I did mention that laws should be made to stop people from hurting others which covers your "yelling 'bomb'" statement.

I agree with you on most, just keep in mind "personal freedoms" and how important they are.  We don't need the government to hold our hands around ever turn.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 8, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> _Resources are finite and the Market Competition puts those finite resources into the most efficient hands_
> 
> Not necessarily. That is wishful thinking. It could just as well be due to corruption, monopoly etc. Which is the case in many cases. Additionally the products can be so complex nowadays and all type of marketing distorts choice.
> 
> ...



With Chickens and how Cows are treated is a moral issue and not an efficiency one. Efficiency is what made the horrible conditions those animals are living in, its cheaper and uses less space to cram a bunch of chickens in small cages and faster to have machines rip them apart. You can make a complaint and have more sane treatment of animals but less efficient way of killing them. The people have a choice in this and can support or not support these practices with their money. People continue to support companies that do this so its why they keep doing it and seems like most don't care, they just want food on their table. But it is still a moral Peta animal treatment issue and not efficiency one.




Food Production and Fossil fuels would be 2 separate topics. It isn't the fault of the farmer that he is stuck with fossil fuels because of the corrupt fossil fuel industry. Fossil Fuels is all he has to produce his crops so that's what he uses. Just like how you driving a fossil fuel car not being your fault. But it's the best you have right now so you use it.


Food is cheap because competition from the market made it cheap. It gave the limited crops to people that can produce it at a cheaper price, compare food prices now and 100 years ago and you'll see how much cheaper and convenient its become, and the people that weren't able to keep up with cheaper prices went out of business. So food, an finite resource, was transferred to more efficient hands, and eliminating inefficient people. Which is the opposite of the fossil fuel industry, they kill competition, they kill alternative energy resources. Which means there is no competition in the market to threaten fossil fuels, which allows them to not improve to produce the most efficient green way possible since they have no pressure from competition to improve. So there is no market competition to put those finite resources in efficient hands. But when there is competition like in the TV industry then you get efficiency, you get prices that come down and you get a better product.



So how would you solve this issue to allow competition to happen, so that they have motivation to out do their opponents which means better stuff for us. To stop them from stiffing competition and keep money out of politics? Capitalism is not the issue but Crony capitalism is. People making too much money in this economy and using that money to buy politicians in their favor. Should we put a cap on how much money people are able to make so that they wont have excess money to buy politicians? Knives are not the issue but how people use those knives are. Guns are not the issue but people that kill are. People suggest that banning guns will solve gun violence so will the same apply to money?  Ban money? What would you suggest to solve this issue and get people to stop buying politicians. Tell them not to? Pass laws and hope they will be a good little boy and follow rules? How many people actually follow rules? How would you stop them from making underground off the table illegal deals?


----------



## Rolf12 (Sep 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> With Chickens and how Cows are treated is a moral issue and not an efficiency one. Efficiency is what made the horrible conditions those animals are living in, its cheaper and uses less space to cram a bunch of chickens in small cages and faster to have machines rip them apart. You can make a complaint and have more sane treatment of animals but less efficient way of killing them. The people have a choice in this and can support or not support these practices with their money. People continue to support companies that do this so its why they keep doing it and seems like most don't care, they just want food on their table. But it is still a moral Peta animal treatment issue and not efficiency one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So many excuses, so little time

Skickat från min LG-D855 via Tapatalk


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 13, 2019)

Searinox said:


> The first amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "bomb!" in a crowd. The 2nd amendment has reach limits too. Everything does.



That's a bad analogy and I see it from gun control advocates all the time. The original Oliver Wendell Holmes language was re: yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. To be equivalent to banning guns, you'd have to have your mouth taped shut before you could even enter the theater. You can still yell, "Fire!," but you've stepped outside the protection of the First Amendment when you do so. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but if you commit crime with a gun you've stepped outside that protection. In neither case can the government preemptively stop you from _lawfully_ exercising your rights, whether it be to free speech or to owning firearms. Not if the Constitution is being followed, anyway.

As far as what the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue, it held in US v Miller that the 2nd Amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" of a typical infantry soldier. So whatever the standard issue infantry weapon of the day is, should be available to the people per the 2nd Amendment. I always find it amusing to hear gun control advocates say that people shouldn't be allowed "weapons of war" when that's exactly what the US Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment DOES cover. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment protects weapons "in common use." The AR-15 rifle design has been the best selling long gun platform in the USA for many years. It is purchased for self-defense, small game hunting (mostly varmint control), and competitions. It is very much "in common use," and very much under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment. Heller did add that "dangerous and unusual weapons," i.e. those outside the contemplation of US v Miller's ruling of what the 2nd Amendment covers, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment right. This answers another common cliche argument from gun control advocates, "does the 2nd Amendment let you buy an atomic bomb??" No, it does not.




Searinox said:


> The 2nd amendment came to be in a time of muskets and low-capacity slow-loading guns.



And cannons. Don't forget cannons. Which private citizens could and did own then.

The 1st Amendment came to be in a time of movable type printing presses. Does that mean it shouldn't apply to modern forms of communication?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 13, 2019)

Searinox said:


> On the argument of this being a way to fight the govt. if it ever goes rogue and sicks the military on its own people: you do realize you're talking about the most powerful and sophisticated military force on the planet right? With drones, nukes, stealth, and just about everything you can imagine. Nuff said. The 2nd amendment came to be in a time of muskets and low-capacity slow-loading guns. Even if it's unsuited for the present, it can still be respected, provided common sense moderation be applied. The first amendment doesn't protect you from yelling "bomb!" in a crowd. The 2nd amendment has reach limits too. Everything does


The same "most powerful and sophisticated military" that's been fighting dudes in pajamas and flip-flops with rusty AKs for 20 years? Sounds like "hero" worship to me. Fun fact: every war after WW2 is unconstitutional in accordance with Article 1 of the Consitution. Who says it has to come to boots on the ground anyway? Cyber warfare is a thing; counter propaganda, etc. There's also backroom deals that could be made with China and Russia, maybe even big business in exchange for relaxed regulations or trade deals with the new government or something. Besides, it's not like Washington D.C. is some impenetrable walled fortress or anything. A small army could destroy the entire chain of presidential succession in one swoop. I'm surprised a group like Isis or similar hasn't tried it yet honestly. Kind of scary if you really think about it.

There were also already automatic machine guns when the Constitution was drafted. Most notable being the Puckle gun. To think they couldn't have imagined firearm technology advancing is a little silly.

As for the tired "fire in a crowded theater" argument: if anyone is dumb enough to fall for that, then that's on them. Bottom line: the Constitution is a legal document, and what it says is exactly what it means. It was not meant to be open to interpretation. If people want to change the meaning, then go through the proper procedure to have it amended. Want the first amendment to exclude "hate speech" and threats? You have to vote to repeal it and then ratify a new one. Same for the second or any other part of the document.

As for the NRA, they are suing the city because of the "terrorist" designation. As much as I dislike them for not doing anything to protect the second amendment, I hope they win amd bankrupt the city.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 13, 2019)

Well, I don't actually have any guns due to distrust of myself, but I support the idea of possession.


----------



## DeoNaught (Sep 13, 2019)

I mean, it was a good discussion till y'all started throwing insults :x

Both sides have their pro's and con's, Liberals might lie, but so do Conservatives. Right might be corrupt, but so is the left side. It's important to take note when someone of high social standard(for lack of better word), like the president, makes a mistake. But also when they do something good. Doesn't matter on what, or what side you are on. The problem with being on either side, is that for the most part, none of you(in general) take note when your side does something bad, only when they do something good

I'm mostly concerned what SF wants to do with branding the NRA as a DTO, Get rid of them so the only way to get guns are through illegal means? seems not that well thought out. But maybe they have a plan, and I just missed it. If they really do want to ban guns, That's really stupid, because the only people who won't get a gun, are the people not going to commit mass shootings.(Slight hyperbole, but for the most part I think it's true)

well that's my opinion and thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Smoker1 (Sep 15, 2019)

Something I said to my Cousin.........
So because of a few, you are OK with punishing everyone????? Criminals will still get them anyway. Besides, good luck taking them from Vets, and 2nd Amendment Supporters. Guns are not the Issue.....it is the PERSON who uses them in the way they do that is the Issue.
Also, for those "Red Flag" Laws......guess what, Cuz.........EVERYONE can be a potential Red Flag! Boss being an Ass? Got passed over for Promotion? Not getting the recognition you deserve at Work? Got turned down by someone you are interested in? People keep talking shit about you? Bullying?? Spouse or BF/GF Cheating???? Found out the Baby is not yours? Bills getting out of hand? Getting Evicted? Bill Collectors pissing you off? Got turned down for a House/Car/Loan?
Yes, I do believe in Checks, to make sure someone is not getting a Weapon who should not have one. But dont go punishing those who are Law Abiding Citizens, because of the few.
Also, for Beto's Comment.........ALL WEAPONS were designed for Battlefield use, with that Function in mind!!!! Including, but not limited to - Flintlocks, Muzzle Loaded Weapons, Revolvers, Shotguns, you name it! Even Hollow Point Rounds were Designed with the intent on causing more damage!!!!!!!
Here's a Question - Why are Non-Lethal Weapons/Rounds not Authorized for Civilian Use??????? Not to mention, why is it, that if someone breaks into your place, you Defend yourself, the Criminal is Injured, gets Arrested, why is it that in some cases, the Criminal and their Lawyer can come after YOU for Damages?????? What gave that idiot the "Right" to break in, in the first place?????
Hell, here in CA, there is a "Law" that if you use an item like a Baseball Bat, or anything like a Baton, you can be Charged with a Misdemeanor, or possibly a Felony??????? So what......no one can use ANYTHING to Defend themselves with, huh???????
Finally, the 2nd Amendment was written, so that 1 - The People can Defend themselves/Family/Property / 2 - To Defend this Country, if a Foreign or Domestic Threat , threatens our way of life. You do know that in times of Emergency, the People can be Called to Arms, right???? You Ban all the Weapons, what are People going to use?????? Hell, Nazis used Children to get their People to turn in their Weapons......then when they were Defenseless, they moved on to their next endeavor.....Mass Murder.


----------



## KennyAtom (Dec 5, 2021)

When can we brand San Francisco a domestic terrorist organization?


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 5, 2021)

It wasn't really worth a 2 year necro bump to say that.


----------

