Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
I have another question for you Luciom.
Imagine that I live in Dallas, Texas. I take $20,000 in cash out of the bank, arm myself to the max (all with legal guns), and travel to the worst neighborhood in Dallas at 2:00 a.m. on a Saturday. I stand on a street corner and loudly count my money. Eventually, two guys try to rob me at knifepoint. I pull out my guns and fatally shoot both of them.
Before I traveled to the bad neighborhood, I told all my friends what I was going to do and explained that I hoped it would provide me with an opportunity to legally shoot someone.
My behavior almost certainly is legal in Texas. Is my behavior moral?
LOLOL at equating the rittenhouses of the world to the korean shop owners in the rodney king riots.
sorry, but that is just dumb
I have another question for you Luciom.
Imagine that I live in Dallas, Texas. I take $20,000 in cash out of the bank, arm myself to the max (all with legal guns), and travel to the worst neighborhood in Dallas at 2:00 a.m. on a Saturday. I stand on a street corner and loudly count my money. Eventually, two guys try to rob me at knifepoint. I pull out my guns and fatally shoot both of them.
Before I traveled to the bad neighborhood, I to
Rittenhouse reminds me of a famous youtuber who goes around on the edges of public property lines and starts filming and calling people names trying to entice people to react violently, preferably cops, to get a successful lawsuit out of it. While he's always within his right to do so you cant feel to bad for him when the bad cop ends up slamming him to the ground when he repeatedly called him a fat ass wife beater.
There isn't anything noble about what RH and while he's technically, in my mind, defending himself legally the second he pulled the trigger, he both escalated and unnecessarily caused this death and muddied the water to what self defense should be.
Well he did rid the world of people who think it’s ok to hit other people in the heads with skateboards
Suck it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rittenhouse reminds me of a famous youtuber who goes around on the edges of public property lines and starts filming and calling people names trying to entice people to react violently, preferably cops, to get a successful lawsuit out of it. While he's always within his right to do so you cant feel to bad for him when the bad cop ends up slamming him to the ground when he repeatedly called him a fat ass wife beater.
There isn't anything n
I think you are extremely wrong because unlike the person harassing cops who aren't doing anything wrong, Rittenhouse was defending law and order against violent rioters.
Violent rioters who should all have been shot dead by police and the national guard to be clear, not tear-gassed or whatever other silly things they were doing to avoid bloodshed.
People shouldn't even think violent rioting is ever an option, that's one of the vilest crimes possible, and you avoid future violent riots best if you kill them all and credibly threaten to do the same in the future.
You might consider vigilantes always wrong as a concept, but when law enforcement abdicates it's duties vigilantes are heroes.
There is something very noble when you put your life at risk, with no pay, to do what law enforcement should do but is refusing to do because of political reasons.
Heinous political reasons: allowing violent rioters to loot and destroy because they are rioting for a cause your party agrees with (both Kenosha mayor and Wisconsin governor were democrat at the time of events).
I have another question for you Luciom.
Imagine that I live in Dallas, Texas. I take $20,000 in cash out of the bank, arm myself to the max (all with legal guns), and travel to the worst neighborhood in Dallas at 2:00 a.m. on a Saturday. I stand on a street corner and loudly count my money. Eventually, two guys try to rob me at knifepoint. I pull out my guns and fatally shoot both of them.
Before I traveled to the bad neighborhood, I to
Very, if as you claim that's legal, why wouldn't it be?
Ofc it would be better if police did it, as they are the people we pay to get rid of crime and your plan seems to get rid of some criminals.
I am not sure why you doubt the morality of a series of actions that end up causing the death of a violent criminal, all while following local laws.
Unless you think violent criminals don't deserve death morally which is very much something I disagree with.
One of the main reasons people oppose the death penalty is usually because of the lack of certainty about the perpetrator having in fact committed the crime.
But with flagrancy you solve that
You can walk back your original comment if you choose. Any remotely decent person would. But at least admit that's what you are doing.
Also, why are you equating morality with legality? If a state changed a statute to make it unlawful to stand your ground against a Marxist, would you then believe that it would be immoral to stand your ground?
Yes if the statute is passed democratically and no constitutional rights are negated by it.
In general it is not moral to act illegally in countries with constitutions and democratic institutios, if you aren't an anarchist or a Marxist you should agree I hope.
I am not sure what you mean with walking back or admit what I am doing, can you elaborate?
Do you seriously believe that most of the people there were Marxists? Do you seriously believe that Kyle Rittenhouse would have been able to discern which people in the crowd were Marxists, and which people in the crowd were not Marxists? Do you seriously believe that one of the most moral (if not legal) things a person can do is shoot someone for believing in Marxism?
If you really believe all these things, then you are much more credulou
Violently rioting against democratic societies is inherently a Marxist act, is this a controversial claim?
Marxism at it's core is about finding inequities and injustice in society, even in democratic ones, by defining groups as oppressed, and justifying violence against society to solve them and liberate the oppressed.
If some people violently riot "for fun" by joining a Marxist inspired violent riot, they might not be Marxists but they deserve the same treatment.
This is not what was originally posted. It makes it look like I was upset for a lesser reason. Why should my post be edited? Both the original and my reply have been edited to remove saying we should murder a subset of trans who do gender theory.
It's progress. We're no longer openly calling for innocents to be killed now. Just guilty people as allowed by law. So, no one really. Unless you're rich and white ..
I didn't edit anything, if something was edited it was by mods not by me.
Remember we can only edit a post for something like half an hour iirc.
I never said we should murder a "subset of trans who do gender theory". I said gender theory was inspired and created by marxists
The skate-bashing guy got killed.
One person was shot and only wounded and had no trial himself because he didn't commit any crime as far as what the known facts are.
The wounded guy pointed a gun to Rittenhouse shortly after Rittenhouse had killed the skate-bashing guy, was shot for that in self defense (jury agreed it was self defense), and that was it.
Rittenhouse (a hero that I hope will inspire a whole generation or more) went there on purpose to find a reason to kill Marxists, and he found a legal one, which is one of the most moral things a person can do with his life, legally killing Marxists.
Wow. That post is wrong on so many levels. Rittenhouse is no hero and I don't even know how to begin to address the rest of your comment. You think it's one of the most moral things to kill someone of a different political persuasion? Which in this specific instance is actually a presumption of yours anyway? Maybe you need to take a breather.
Wow. That post is wrong on so many levels. Rittenhouse is no hero and I don't even know how to begin to address the rest of your comment. You think it's one of the most moral things to kill someone of a different political persuasion? Which in this specific instance is actually a presumption of yours anyway? Maybe you need to take a breather.
I am not sure why you guys go from Marxist to "anyone who disagrees with me politically about anything" but I guess this is what people do when they don't want to engage in actual conversation.
I am also not sure why you don't recognize the threat to society that Marxism poses, we are talking people who justify unlimited violence to bring about the revolution and completely change society forever in very negative ways.
And which managed to do so several times in several countries destroying those countries in the process and causing the death of more people than any other set of ideas ever developed by mankind.
There is no comparable human made threat to humankind. And at this point in history we should have eradicated Marxism completely from our societies.
But not only we didn't, we allow it to flourish in western universities! And from there it spreads to society at large.
I don't see why you don't understand that violently rioting for what you perceive to be social justice is inherently a Marxist act so there is no presumption.
Anyway I don't know if it's about not realizing how big of a threat that is, or actually agreeing with some Marxists values , but it's scary many here take the position that Marxism is something which should be part of western society and not a big deal.
It's truly incredible though that I get the heat for saying that legally killing Marxists is moral, when they want to kill many of us and would do even even illegally if they had the chance, and they did that, they killed tens of millions of people
He was defending himself in the process of being a vigilante with the goal of protecting property which was not his own, and to which he drove from another state with a deadly weapon he illegally had. He was looking to get into a position where he could shoot someone, and antagonizing people who were doing things that had nothing to do with him. This is one of the incredibly stupid and violent people I feel no sympathy for; the world woul
I pretty much agree with you re Rittenhouse, but you're incorrect on him crossing state lines with a weapon, he didn't bring the weapon with him, it was already in Kenosha where it was purchased.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...
Nor did his Mam drive him there he'd driven to Kenosha himself the day before the shootings.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking...
If you think the world would be better off without him, would you feel the same way about one of the men he shot, Joseph Rosenbaum? He was a sex offender after all who served 14 years in prison for child molestation and was facing charges of domestic abuse. I'm asking within the context of your apparent mindset, not because I think Rosenbaum deserved it, to clarify.
I am not sure why you guys go from Marxist to "anyone who disagrees with me politically about anything" but I guess this is what people do when they don't want to engage in actual conversation.
Last I checked Marxism was a political ideology. You stated it's the most moral thing to kill Marxists, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's an ideology you disagree with. If you think it's oky to kill only Marxists but nobody else who disagrees with you then you're being a shade contrary.
I am also not sure why you don't recognize the threat to society that Marxism poses, we are talking people who justify unlimited violence to bring about the revolution and completely change society forever in very negative ways.
Indeed and I've no truck with it. But you're being contrary again as you claim to be libertarian who loves freedom. In free societies, people are allowed to espouse Marxism. If however, they commit any crimes in the name of advancing it, then that's a different story innit? So you are actually saying it's okay to kill those who disagree with you politically.
And which managed to do so several times in several countries destroying those countries in the process and causing the death of more people than any other set of ideas ever developed by mankind.
There is no comparable human made threat to humankind. And at this point in history we should have eradicated Marxism completely from our societies.
But not only we didn't, we allow it to flourish in western universities! And from there it spreads to society at large.
See above re the distinction between freedom of speech and criminality.
I don't see why you don't understand that violently rioting for what you perceive to be social justice is inherently a Marxist act so there is no presumption.
No it isn't, there was nothing remotely Marxist regarding the Dublin riots a few months ago or the current chagrin of farmers Europe wide. Violent rioting occurs for a myriad of reasons, it doesn't all stem from Marxism.
Anyway I don't know if it's about not realizing how big of a threat that is, or actually agreeing with some Marxists values , but it's scary many here take the position that Marxism is something which should be part of western society and not a big deal.
I wouldn't call it scary. Dumb, sure but not scary.People are free to espouse Marxism just as others are free to laugh at them espousing their crap.
It's truly incredible though that I get the heat for saying that legally killing Marxists is moral, when they want to kill many of us and would do even even illegally if they had the chance, and they did that, they killed tens of millions of people
I think you're missing the bigger picture mate, trees and forests and all that.
The dublin riots, like jan 6 riots, are indeed actually marxist riots as well. I understand you disagree with my assessment, but violent rioting for perceived unjustices is marxism.
In dublin rioters acted violently because they disagree with immigration laws and law enforcement actions. That's marxism 101, using violence in a democratic society instead of the political process to try to achieve your political goals.
On Jan 6, the portion of protesters who became violent and attempted to trespass areas, then illegally enter the capitol building, again acted in a very marxist way: using violence to try to interrupt the democratic process because of perceived great unjustices in the system (in this case the claims the election was rigged).
Again it's not by claiming the election was rigged, or by disagreeing with a country immigration law, that you become a marxist. You become a marxist in those cases when you use violence against society because of what you perceive to be great unjustices perpetrated by society itself.
Farmers protests , like the protests in Kenosha held during the day (which were peaceful) and countless other protests that happen in western countries, aren't inherently marxist nor violent nor criminal, far from it. A peaceful non violent protest can be marxist if it's about asking for marxist values to become the law for example, but that's a different topic.
Marxism isn't only a political ideology, it's also a set of actions, a sort of manual for revolutionaries, and the set of actions can be fully disjointed from the original claims that under marxism justify such violence.
The dublin riots, like jan 6 riots, are indeed actually marxist riots as well. I understand you disagree with my assessment, but violent rioting for perceived unjustices is marxism.
In dublin rioters acted violently because they disagree with immigration laws and law enforcement actions. That's marxism 101, using violence in a democratic society instead of the political process to try to achieve your political goals.
On Jan 6, the portion of
Nice.
The dublin riots, like jan 6 riots, are indeed actually marxist riots as well. I understand you disagree with my assessment, but violent rioting for perceived unjustices is marxism.
In dublin rioters acted violently because they disagree with immigration laws and law enforcement actions. That's marxism 101, using violence in a democratic society instead of the political process to try to achieve your political goals.
No, that's the alt right whingeing. Nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism.
On Jan 6, the portion of protesters who became violent and attempted to trespass areas, then illegally enter the capitol building, again acted in a very marxist way: using violence to try to interrupt the democratic process because of perceived great unjustices in the system (in this case the claims the election was rigged).
No that's the American right wing whingeing.
Again it's not by claiming the election was rigged, or by disagreeing with a country immigration law, that you become a marxist. You become a marxist in those cases when you use violence against society because of what you perceive to be great unjustices perpetrated by society itself.
So the Ultras over your way having a football riot is... because Marxism? Again violent rioting is for a myriad of reasons, be they political, anger or sheer opportunistic and again maybe you need a breather mate.
Farmers protests , like the protests in Kenosha held during the day (which were peaceful) and countless other protests that happen in western countries, aren't inherently marxist nor violent nor criminal, far from it. A peaceful non violent protest can be marxist if it's about asking for marxist values to become the law for example, but that's a different topic.
You're essentially saying that any protest becomes Marxist the second it turns violent and you're extraordinarily wrong in this respect.
Marxism isn't only a political ideology, it's also a set of actions, a sort of manual for revolutionaries, and the set of actions can be fully disjointed from the original claims that under marxism justify such violence.
Lots of groups have justified violence. Didn't you say you were from Bologna? You seriously telling me the Bologna massacre for example was inherently Marxist? Or right wing violence/terrorism in general? Seriously?
Luciom has some pretty "interesting" definitions. Apparently, "legality" and "morality" are synonyms, and anyone who breaks a window at a protest is a "Marxist", with overtones of "subhuman" who should be killed.
Luciom, you're a fascist.
Luciom has some pretty "interesting" definitions. Apparently, "legality" and "morality" are synonyms, and anyone who breaks a window at a protest is a "Marxist", with overtones of "subhuman" who should be killed.
Luciom, you're a fascist.
Not synonyms no.
With the caveats given about the law being democratically passed, in a country with a liberal constitution, and with no constitutional rights infringed, I claim that acting against the law is inherently immoral yes.
Which doesn't mean that anything which is legal is moral though.
Not sure why you equate asking for draconian treatment of rioters to fascism, given fascists and nazists frequently used violent rioting for political purposes.
I am not sure you understand that if people had shared my view back in the days, law enforcement/militaries would have killed all participants of the beer hall putsch in Munich, and history would have been very different.
As for Italian fascism, there were plenty violent rioting situations which the state actually allowed on purpose, and it's because of people like you despising the ideas I am now promoting (to treat politically motivated violent rioting as an existential threat to the nation, and so use lethal force against it) that fascism actually happened.
You are doing something very evil here, calling fascist the set of ideas that if implemented at the time, would have prevented fascism and Nazism from taking control of Italy and Germany.
People who want to achieve political change through violent riots are indeed not compatible with civil society, and I am not sure why you defend that sentiment or why you want them to be treated with leniency
Lots of groups have justified violence. Didn't you say you were from Bologna? You seriously telling me the Bologna massacre for example was inherently Marxist? Or right wing violence/terrorism in general? Seriously?
Yes? How is this controversial?
Political terrorism in a democracy is Marxism! It's a Marxist tool, a Marxist concept, a Marxist derived set of actions.
In fact fascism and nazism operated with Marxist methods to acquire power, often trying to get the consensus of the same people Marxists claimed to represent , often using the same rethoric!
Which is why Togliatti, Italian communist party leader in 1936 tried to appeal to "his brothers with the black shirts" , because it's the ****ing same people lol.
All political terrorism in a democracy is Marxist? You don't actually know what "Marxism" means, do you?
All political terrorism in a democracy is Marxist? You don't actually know what "Marxism" means, do you?
What Marxism means is what we are discussing.
I am giving you the data and the argument as to why political terrorism in a democracy is Marxism.
All you counter is "I use another definition", but you pretend yours is correct with no argument.
What Marxism means is what we are discussing.
I am giving you the data and the argument as to why political terrorism in a democracy is Marxism.
All you counter is "I use another definition", but you pretend yours is correct with no argument.
Your definition is so fanciful as to be self-evidently wrong and deluded to anyone capable of using a dictionary, so there is not much for me to add.
