San Francisco brands NRA a domestic terrorist organization

[IncredulousP]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[morvoran]

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]

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]

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.

I see, that makes sense.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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.

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]

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

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]

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?

So many excuses, so little time

Skickat från min LG-D855 via Tapatalk

 

[Hanafuda]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[DeoNaught]

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.