posted August 02, 2019 07:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Ok so grenades are good for society but a little marijauna or LSD YOU GO TO JAIL

---

i'm pro legalization of all drugs actually (big fan of lsd and weed among other things) because i also find the idea of a government regulating that insane

it's my drug history that makes me well aware of how easy it is to get illegal things and once you know how and where to get one illegal thing it's easy to start to find others, no ****

i just don't think people should be comfortable with giving their governments a **** ton of power over them while simultaneously making it impossible for them to defend themselves

grenades being legal if they were really expensive wouldn't even be an issue in most cases, it'd be that simple to "regulate" them for the most part

also it's not just hicks who own guns, i'm not a hick i'm from nyc btw

the reality is that disadvantage with weapons in a revolutionary situation is typical, and yet the balance of power still shifts when the people know what they're doing

people with guns could do a hell of a lot more than people without them (in a war situation), but if you look at history there's been poor farmers with machetes who overtaken soldiers with guns (and then they had guns, enemies double as a weapons supply just saying)

governments are made up of people, and people by nature have weaknesses that can be exploited in any given situation

taking guns away would just make it easier in the long run for tyranny to occur, it's short sighted

trading power for safety tends to cost people both and it's never a good idea in the long run

you have to have a lot of faith in a system to give it so much control, and in nearly all cases that faith is unwarranted and even when it isn't during your lifetime you're taking away **** from people in other generations who aren't going to be dealing with the exact same **** as you but will be stuck with whatever foundation you create for them

posted August 02, 2019 07:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Ya i hear that, I guess the cost then is we have to deal with mass shootings. Sadly.

I can def see how an armed populace is a deterrent to tryanny.

---

if we didn't have mass shootings we'd have some other **** going down (and mass shootings still happen in places where guns are illegal again if you're a murderer you don't care about the law, just facts) people getting taken out by trucks like what goes on in england

and then i suppose people what would want to ban trucks?

like i said there's ways to kill a lot of people with other legal **** , it's not like you just get rid of that one thing and then suddenly it's impossible

posted August 02, 2019 07:57 PM            

the reality is your average gun owner is responsible and not a murderer, your average person in general isn't a murderer

mass shooting stories are sensationalized to breed fear because the fear caused both divides people and provides an opportunity to strip away another layer of power from the masses and tip the scales further towards those already in power

posted August 04, 2019 12:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Lol what good is a bunch of hicks with guns gonna do against the US governemnt? Not much sir.

---

I guess when you can't win an argument with reason and logic, you have to resort to name calling. Although this is probably the most ignorant comment I've see in a while.

posted August 04, 2019 11:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StubbornVirgo:
I guess when you can't win an argument with reason and logic, you have to resort to name calling. Although this is probably the most ignorant comment I've see in a while.

Do yourself a favor and pick up an American history book. When you're done with that, read the constitution. Maybe you'll learn something useful.

---

posted August 04, 2019 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StubbornVirgo:
I guess when you can't win an argument with reason and logic, you have to resort to name calling. Although this is probably the most ignorant comment I've see in a while.

Do yourself a favor and pick up an American history book. When you're done with that, read the constitution. Maybe you'll learn something useful.

---

"Hicks" is thoughtless and nonfactual, sure. That's fine if said to poke the enemy, but dangerous if believed. The Right does the same when it laughs at the notion of fighting "blue haired fags and trannies." Those blue haired fags and trannies are putting up a hell of a fight, aren't they?

posted August 04, 2019 01:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
"Hicks" is thoughtless and nonfactual, sure. That's fine if said to poke the enemy, but dangerous if believed. The Right does the same when it laughs at the notion of fighting "blue haired fags and trannies." Those blue haired fags and trannies are putting up a hell of a fight, aren't they?

Go-to stereotypical put downs aside, BR makes another good point. This finds the heart of the 2nd debate. Are we, Left or Right, capable of sustaining an armed uprising against the government? Can we maintain the level of violence necessary to force their hand? Are we a threat? Many I know on both sides believe violent civil unrest and the consequent Fed crackdown is inevitable. Many are eager for this and some are doing their best to hurry it along. (mass event, not Ruby Ridge on endless loop) My history books tell me armed civilian uprisings against the military usually fail. Successful rebellions not rooted in the military were able to sway the military.

---

violence is typically a part of social change, power is never just given up freely and peace is just a war strategy

reality is it takes pressure in multiple ways and multiple places to collapse something huge

the real issue is left or right shouldn't matter at least temporarily because no one is getting their ideals under the current system and the polarization and in fighting make any mass movement that could be worthwhile very difficult

posted August 04, 2019 01:57 PM            

quote:

---

violence is typically a part of social change, power is never just given up freely and peace is just a war strategy

---

posted August 04, 2019 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
The left/right polarization is skin deep. In DC, yeah, and many are waking to this, but among insurgents as well. Shared aims makes for odd bedfellows.

---

it's a little deeper than that in a lot of places unfortunately, but hopefully it will get better

media and the election etc are likely to make that worse as things go on though on some level unless people really start paying attention

i find it funny because a lot of the major **** that's wrong with this country (that isnt plays on peoples emotions and passions) has been going on regardless of which side is in office

posted August 04, 2019 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
I have no issue with this and have said the same here repeatedly. Violence is movement.

---

posted August 04, 2019 02:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
[quote]

---

posted August 04, 2019 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
to clarify: opposing factions exist. to characterize these as left/right would be a mistake. the left/right opposition as sold to the masses is a useful game, and not much more.

If I use left/right to describe anything beyond that game, I won't use it here and it won't be by common definition

---

of course it runs deeper than that, but it's useful and what's being sold to the masses is no doubt an issue

i've talked to plenty of people who do see past that **** though, the unfortunate with that is that there's a lot of issues when it comes to proper and effective communication given the current state of everything

it's sad how much harder people are trying to make it on each other though, literally begging for more power to be held over them

it's fascinating on one hand, and terrifying on the other

the next couple of years should be interesting

it's weird because before all of this even started to build to the point it has through studying the occult the trends towards it were already pretty clear

posted August 04, 2019 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/7-wounded-in-shooting-near-chicago-playground

---

posted August 04, 2019 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
i see nothing in that article that says it was a legal firearm

---

posted August 04, 2019 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
So? trump also got rid of extra precautions when it came to people with mental health issues, when it comes to buying guns, yet that's what I'm seeing from the people who make excuses. When it comes to cities like Baltimore and Chicago, they don't blame mental health, poverty, etc. They blame the people themselves. They blame the city has a whole. They blame Democrats.

---

if it was an illegal firearm then posting an article about it in a debate about legal firearms would be unfair and pointless because it wouldn't be part of the debate

things acquired illegally can still be obtained by anyone whether or not guns are legal

that's what i'm getting at

i actually don't disagree with allowing someone with mental illness to own a gun because mental illness is varied and doesn't mean someone is a murderer or should have their right to defend themselves or their property taken away

there's a difference between violent mental illness and just someone having issues

to be perfectly honest with you i don't believe the government should infringe on the ownership of guns at all i think the constitution speaks for itself and that's all there is to it

it is the gun owners themselves in those cities who are at fault yes there's other social issues that are contributing factors

please don't say "they" when you discuss something with me where we disagree though, because i'm not that strawman you're creating