by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

International Northwestern Union Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .27,77327,77427,77527,77627,77727,77827,779. . .27,83427,835»

Mallaska wrote:I don't support the NRA because they only seem to represent "muh deer rifle is all I need" Fudds rather than gun owners in total and have warped too much into a pseudo right-wing lobby rather than gun lobby.

That being said the way the country's largest gun rights organization (regardless of its leanings) is just being constantly demonized shows that the Dems don't actually care about solving the cause of violence but would rather demonize gun owners and restrict the 2nd Amendment even further. The thing is the NRA is huge, yes its media is loony as hell and it really has failed to support the gun owner in recent years (As such I support the Second Amendment Foundation in lieu of it), but it also DOES offer gun safety courses and other amenities to gun owners. It's failings come from its horrid leadership via LaPierre, but it is prudent to criticize what is wrong with the organization and its leaders rather than the organization itself as it represents too vast an audience (Hmm wonder where else we can apply that thinking). And if anyone wants to attack NRA lobbying in state legislation and nationally, Bloomberg and his cronies have pumped far more money into demonizing guns yet that is a fact often omitted.

And I can safely say voting Democrat is a hard no from me, there is no longer a single candidate I can support by any means whatsoever.

The second amendment is the cause for violence though. Widespread access to guns exacerbates literally every societal and economic problem. School shootings don't happen in other countries. Militarized local police forces as an extreme response to the prospect of gun violence at the minimum sign of domestic dispute isn't a thing in other countries.

Like, I understand your desire as a responsible gun-owning American to fight for your 2nd amendment rights, and I kinda understand the role gun ownership plays in the national ethos of the US, but to pretend like the cause of excessive gun violence isn't widespread access to guns in the first place is farcical.

Midland South States wrote:https://youtu.be/LEcbagW4O-s

It's a damn gun worshipping death cult these days. It would literally be different if they were just trying to promote safety and awareness.

The NRA literally put out an ad that that mirrors one that ISIS had put out.

https://youtu.be/9g0dnxLGW8M

While I admit they do a lot more lobbying than teaching - which isn't how it's supposed to be - calling this an ISIS ad is quite a statement.

It's an appeal to fear. EVERY political organization does this every day, which includes ISIS, and while I havent seen any ISIS ads recently and cant confirm their content, I'm confident in saying that any similarities are simply subjective at best.

Ichoria wrote:The second amendment is the cause for violence though. Widespread access to guns exacerbates literally every societal and economic problem. School shootings don't happen in other countries. Militarized local police forces as an extreme response to the prospect of gun violence at the minimum sign of domestic dispute isn't a thing in other countries.

Like, I understand your desire as a responsible gun-owning American to fight for your 2nd amendment rights, and I kinda understand the role gun ownership plays in the national ethos of the US, but to pretend like the cause of excessive gun violence isn't widespread access to guns in the first place is farcical.

There wouldn't be gun violence if people didn't think they had to use violence to get what they want/solve their problems. The use of firearms in domestic violence, robbery, suicides, mass shootings, etc speaks to larger and deeper issues that so t simply disappear if all guns are taken off the street. Someone suicidal will still be suicidal, someone who is angry at the world will still be full of hate, and someone caught in the dark depth of poverty/drugs/street violence will still be so. Now, there is no doubt that guns provide a convenient means to an end. But to get rid of them all, I believe, will bring little true solution to the issues at the core of their misuse whilst also creating larger issues in it's wake.

Midland South States wrote:Drunk me just sunk sober me further in debt

This is an anti-power move

That notwithstanding- the NRA does still run gun safety classes, and it does still outline good safety practices (which, for one reason or another, never get codified into law).

It's not like the NRA just spouts fearmongering bullsh1t all day, that's more like just its hobby.

Most of it's time is spent actually tackling the root cause thousands of kids who accidentally die from playing with guns, and hundreds of thousands who kill themselves every year in suicides.

Mallaska wrote:I don't support the NRA because they only seem to represent "muh deer rifle is all I need" Fudds rather than gun owners in total and have warped too much into a pseudo right-wing lobby rather than gun lobby.

That being said the way the country's largest gun rights organization (regardless of its leanings) is just being constantly demonized shows that the Dems don't actually care about solving the cause of violence but would rather demonize gun owners and restrict the 2nd Amendment even further. The thing is the NRA is huge, yes its media is loony as hell and it really has failed to support the gun owner in recent years (As such I support the Second Amendment Foundation in lieu of it), but it also DOES offer gun safety courses and other amenities to gun owners. It's failings come from its horrid leadership via LaPierre, but it is prudent to criticize what is wrong with the organization and its leaders rather than the organization itself as it represents too vast an audience (Hmm wonder where else we can apply that thinking). And if anyone wants to attack NRA lobbying in state legislation and nationally, Bloomberg and his cronies have pumped far more money into demonizing guns yet that is a fact often omitted.

And I can safely say voting Democrat is a hard no from me, there is no longer a single candidate I can support by any means whatsoever.

The NRA won't be receiving anything from me any time soon. But it is important to separate the NRAs lobbying arm and shadier practices with the side that provides education and greater safety to those who own guns and are around them. Education plays a significant role in proper gun usage, and to see a valuable resource to educate gun owners go away as collateral damage isn't a good thing

EstRADia wrote:There wouldn't be gun violence if people didn't think they had to use violence to get what they want/solve their problems. The use of firearms in domestic violence, robbery, suicides, mass shootings, etc speaks to larger and deeper issues that so t simply disappear if all guns are taken off the street. Someone suicidal will still be suicidal, someone who is angry at the world will still be full of hate, and someone caught in the dark depth of poverty/drugs/street violence will still be so. Now, there is no doubt that guns provide a convenient means to an end. But to get rid of them all, I believe, will bring little true solution to the issues at the core of their misuse whilst also creating larger issues in it's wake.

I'm going to use the weirdest example for this - the hitchhiking robot.

It made it most of the way around Germany, Canada, Netherlands, and then when it was sent across the USA? It got murdered.

Violence is so strangely innate in american culture. That, combined with guns, makes an extremely dangerous situation - one that pulling guns out if the population won't solve.

TimberWolves wrote:I'm going to use the weirdest example for this - the hitchhiking robot.

It made it most of the way around Germany, Canada, Netherlands, and then when it was sent across the USA? It got murdered.

Violence is so strangely innate in american culture. That, combined with guns, makes an extremely dangerous situation - one that pulling guns out if the population won't solve.

In Philadelphia, no less. America has some deep seated issues that are/will be very hard to tackle. A lot harder than it is to focus on what's become the physical manifestation of violence. It is easy to fear guns and hate the violence they're used in. And it's much easier to ban a physical object of legislate against it than try to focus on tackling overbearing and multifaceted issues such as poverty, mental health, drug abuse, domestic violence, extremism, etc etc. There is a strong drive to rid America of these issues, which is great. The the plan of action, taking away guns, will not get to the central issues that create the violence in the first place.

Ichoria wrote:The second amendment is the cause for violence though. Widespread access to guns exacerbates literally every societal and economic problem. School shootings don't happen in other countries. Militarized local police forces as an extreme response to the prospect of gun violence at the minimum sign of domestic dispute isn't a thing in other countries.

Like, I understand your desire as a responsible gun-owning American to fight for your 2nd amendment rights, and I kinda understand the role gun ownership plays in the national ethos of the US, but to pretend like the cause of excessive gun violence isn't widespread access to guns in the first place is farcical.

You know what else didnt happen in other countries?

40-hour a week specials on Columbine, on Sandy Hook, on all the mass shootings and, more disturbingly, the lives of the shooters.

To a young kid who's mentally unstable and socially exiled, those documentaries aren't a look into evil. They're a recipe to get famous.

Any why - why - were news agencies running articles about the love letters and fan mail that Nikolas Cruz was getting? What the hell kind of message does that send to a kid?

It shows you how much of the population is that kind of desperate. Kids need a role model; please stop showing them bad ways to make a name for themselves.

EstRADia wrote:In Philadelphia, no less. America has some deep seated issues that are/will be very hard to tackle. A lot harder than it is to focus on what's become the physical manifestation of violence. It is easy to fear guns and hate the violence they're used in. And it's much easier to ban a physical object of legislate against it than try to focus on tackling overbearing and multifaceted issues such as poverty, mental health, drug abuse, domestic violence, extremism, etc etc. There is a strong drive to rid America of these issues, which is great. The the plan of action, taking away guns, will not get to the central issues that create the violence in the first place.

And more so, itll cause massive problems to the law abiding citizens (which are millions) who use them in Defensive Gun Uses (hundreds of thousands of times per year), as well as literally everyone who doesnt live an urbanite lifestyle and needs a gun.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1866050001

Cekan wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1866050001

So, to a person living in the nations most violent state, you should turn in your guns so they dont get used in a crime? Or should you vote for registration so the cops can confiscate it for you?

Cekan wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1866050001

Don't expose Utah like that.

TimberWolves wrote:You know what else didnt happen in other countries?

40-hour a week specials on Columbine, on Sandy Hook, on all the mass shootings and, more disturbingly, the lives of the shooters.

To a young kid who's mentally unstable and socially exiled, those documentaries aren't a look into evil. They're a recipe to get famous.

Any why - why - were news agencies running articles about the love letters and fan mail that Nikolas Cruz was getting? What the hell kind of message does that send to a kid?

It shows you how much of the population is that kind of desperate. Kids need a role model; please stop showing them bad ways to make a name for themselves.

Still cringe whenever a news Network mentions a shooters name. It's entirely counterproductive to put these people up on a pedestal. Infamy is just another version of Fame. And it only further encourages those already on the brink to lash out for their chance at the spotlight.

TimberWolves wrote:And more so, itll cause massive problems to the law abiding citizens (which are millions) who use them in Defensive Gun Uses (hundreds of thousands of times per year), as well as literally everyone who doesnt live an urbanite lifestyle and needs a gun.

Like I've said, I wouldn't doubt that theoretically getting rid of all guns would decrease gun related crimes. But it's the cost and lack of true solutions that come with it that I have an issue with.

Marianne Williams is really focusing on the dark undercurrents. Gonna miss her during the 3rd debate.

"Why don't you trust the government with the locations and owners of guns in the US?"

I'm not sure why anyone WOULD trust it.
In the last 5 years alone, the US agencies have:
-smuggled cocaine in and out of the US
-sold weapons to known terrorist organizations
-killed hundreds of innocent people in police confrontations
-made a large number of inappropriate and/or racist and/or sexist public announcements (t. Trump)

If you're about to call red flag gun laws on people, can we call it on the US gov?

Post self-deleted by TimberWolves.

What solution do minorities have, then, for self defense? If the cops are all racist pigs, the courts are all rigged, and owning a gun means you're planning a shooting, what options does that leave?

TimberWolves wrote:"Why don't you trust the government with the locations and owners of guns in the US?"

I'm not sure why anyone WOULD trust it.
In the last 5 years alone, the US agencies have:
-smuggled cocaine in and out of the US
-sold weapons to known terrorist organizations
-killed hundreds of innocent people in police confrontations
-made a large number of inappropriate and/or racist and/or sexist public announcements (t. Trump)

If you're about to call red flag gun laws on people, can we call it on the US gov?

Definitely a major argument. How can one rail against coruppt and overbearing police/government whilst also arguing for them to have even more power over who owns a gun and who can defend themselves? Especially as a minority, that stance seems pretty oxymoronic.

As far as red flag laws go, I do think there's a legitimacy to them. But they must follow due process to the letter.

TimberWolves wrote:What solution do minorities have, then, for self defense? If the cops are all racist pigs, the courts are all rigged, and owning a gun means you're planning a shooting, what options does that leave?

As far as I know the first major gun control bills were in response to minorities arming themselves, especially the Black Panthers. So there is also a racial argument to have when it comes to gun control.

Can't wait for the US to be forced to sign an association agreement with the European Federation

Tracian Empire wrote:Can't wait for the US to be forced to sign an association agreement with the European Federation

If Romania has any part in it, I wouldn't hold my breath

I've gone to sleep @ 11 for the past 3 days and each night has been restless. I don't get it

TimberWolves wrote:So, to a person living in the nations most violent state, you should turn in your guns so they dont get used in a crime? Or should you vote for registration so the cops can confiscate it for you?

When I posted this I didnít even know there was a gun rights debate going on here
Iím just here to make fun of the South for being a sh*thole

Cekan wrote:When I posted this I didnít even know there was a gun rights debate going on here
Iím just here to make fun of the South for being a sh*thole

Hey, if it wasn't for Mississippi you wouldn't be able to laugh at it.

EstRADia wrote:There wouldn't be gun violence if people didn't think they had to use violence to get what they want/solve their problems. The use of firearms in domestic violence, robbery, suicides, mass shootings, etc speaks to larger and deeper issues that so t simply disappear if all guns are taken off the street. Someone suicidal will still be suicidal, someone who is angry at the world will still be full of hate, and someone caught in the dark depth of poverty/drugs/street violence will still be so. Now, there is no doubt that guns provide a convenient means to an end. But to get rid of them all, I believe, will bring little true solution to the issues at the core of their misuse whilst also creating larger issues in it's wake.

Well, yes, and there wouldn't be a hunger crisis if people didn't need to eat, or an obesity epidemic if humans could just learn to control their urges. Saying that the problem is human psychology is just about the most mundane statement there is, it's not a thesis, it's a basic truth.

Suicidal people who don't have guns don't get to shoot themselves, angry husbands without guns don't get to shoot their wives, violent teens without guns don't get to shoot their schoolmates. There's no complexity besides the one Americans fabricate themselves to hide the basic truth that the price for upholding their Constitution is exacerbated violence.

I just got a virus pop up ad that opened a new page on my phone

FŁckís wrong with you, NS?

«12. . .27,77327,77427,77527,77627,77727,77827,779. . .27,83427,835»

Advertisement