Quote :

"Because if YOU, DTOWN, truly believe that the 2nd amendment is necessary to defend against government oppression, then your position should be to have LESS restrictions. Your position, as a self described person on the left who likes gun ownership, should be that MORE people should be armed, because in other threads on other topics, you openly acknowledge the forms of government oppression that visit poor and minority communities. You should be advocating that those communities arm themselves in order to combat the tyranny they face, mainly from every day policing to mass incarceration. But that's not your position."

2/28/2018 6:40:39 PM

I know people who love guns are fixated on the second part of the 2nd Amendment, the part that comes AFTER the comma with all of that info about a well-regulated militia, but I wish they'd actually read the first part.

2/28/2018 6:43:39 PM

the supreme court says it's an individual right, and they say gun control isn't infringing it

2/28/2018 8:05:23 PM

The part that explains why the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms? that's the most important part of the second amendment. it strikes at the heart of why the second amendment isn't about hunting and fending off robbers.

2/28/2018 8:08:45 PM

That meme is cool. Let’s arm and organize the working class!

Wait you want to do what?!?!

2/28/2018 8:46:06 PM

Quote :

"Walmart announced Wednesday that it will no longer sell firearms and ammunition to people younger than 21 and would also remove items resembling assault-style rifles from its website. The move comes after Dick's Sporting Goods announced earlier in the day that it would restrict the sale of firearms to those under 21 years old. It didn't mention ammunition. Dick's also said it would immediately stop selling assault-style rifles, and its CEO took on the National Rifle Association by demanding tougher gun laws."

2/28/2018 9:20:24 PM

cool, people should support their mom n pop local gun store when they buy semi auto rifles for self defense and target shootin

3/1/2018 6:05:28 AM

Obama Trump is asking for an AWB, improved background checks, and firearm confiscation.

You chucklefucks.

3/1/2018 7:27:28 AM

Checkout r/t_d, they are in complete confusion and crazy ban mode right now

3/1/2018 7:29:34 AM

Scavino is already in walk back mode. This would be a good time to remember that this President doesn’t actually speak for the Executive. Better to see what Kelly and Miller are saying for real policy goals.

Aside from his authoritarian dream of denying due process I’m hoping I’m wrong of course. Would be funny if the GOP finally did something because of not Obama.

3/1/2018 7:43:38 AM

Quote :

"You're a gun owner that is incapable of observing how that fact might be clouding your judgement and aligning yourself with the rabid right wing that wants to increase gun ownership. How is this not fucking obvious to you? How do you square that circle? How do you meaningfully reduce the overall number of guns while still maintaining yours? Do you honestly believe that we can lower gun deaths while still steadily increasing the total number of guns in circulation?"

So, in your mind, if I got rid of my Mosin-Nagant rifle (manufactured in 1936 and about as suited to murder as a musket would be), that would both "meaningfully reduce" the number of guns and also magically free me from the grip of the NRA, an organization which I have repeatedly condemned and whose police goals I uniformly oppose?

Quote :

"Because if YOU, DTOWN, truly believe that the 2nd amendment is necessary to defend against government oppression, then your position should be to have LESS restrictions. Your position, as a self described person on the left who likes gun ownership, should be that MORE people should be armed"

There is no logical inconsistency here. It is possible to balance one's response to a hypothetical threat - intolerable government oppression - with their response to a real one - crazy people and violent criminals with guns.

That "intolerable" qualifier is subjective but necessary. Thomas Jefferson thought so when he wrote the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies"

So yes, in this countries there are populations facing a government that is often inimical to them. Arguably there are even large swathes of people who face tyranny. It does not therefore follow that every person not opposed to the 2nd Amendment should be attempting to flood these communities with weapons, particularly when the the threat of gun violence in these areas is often no less real and immediate than the threat of government oppression.

3/1/2018 8:07:26 AM

Quote :

"So yes, in this countries there are populations facing a government that is often inimical to them. Arguably there are even large swathes of people who face tyranny. It does not therefore follow that every person not opposed to the 2nd Amendment should be attempting to flood these communities with weapons, particularly when the the threat of gun violence in these areas is often no less real and immediate than the threat of government oppression."

So in other words: You are more afraid (reasonably, in your words) of gun violence from poor and often minority communities than you are of government oppression. You actually stressed this point when you italicized the word particularly. So your main reason for defense of the 2nd amendment has more to do about defending your person from these communities than about resisting government tyranny.


Do you not see how this is a problematic position to have?

3/1/2018 10:25:35 AM

I think he's saying that the communities that face the most government oppression often also have higher levels of violent crimes so they might want a gun for both reasons and not because they are racist child killers

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2018 11:26:57 AM

I don't think so. His sentence was riddled with negatives so it was tricky to make sense of it.

But even if that were the argument, then that basically boils down to, "sorry guys, you're on your own." That's still a problematic position to have: "We can't flood you with guns because you are not to be trusted with them. But also don't take my old civil war rinky dink shotgun that doesn't even work."

This would also be an admission that "more guns= more violence" which is an argument that you would only make in favor of arms reduction, not against.

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2018 11:57:02 AM

more guns does equal more violence which is why we need gun control, it does not go against the position of gun owners who want gun control.

it does clearly fly in the face of your argument that all gun owners are racist child killers

3/1/2018 12:18:48 PM

JesusHChrist you are still totally missing the point. The US isn't violent because it has a lot of guns (although it sure doesn't help). It's violent because we are oppressed, powerless, and brainwashed.

Solidarity --> Empowerment --> Social Reform --> Gun Reform

Solidarity includes gun owners (and bigots, since we're conflating the two so much). We are so close to a unified working class, but the rich pit us against each other, and you're buying right into it.

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2018 12:30:53 PM

adultswim.....Trotsky openly advocates for an armed workforce. He even mocks Ghandi for being a mark-ass-bitch. The entire point of having armed workers is to seize power, not to reform it.

The problem in the US is that a huge, not insignificant number of gun "shall not be infringed" absolutists are reactionary and right-wing. The rest are DTOWN, who is basically malfunctioning right now as he grapples with his defense of gun ownership and desire to cosmetically reduce gun ownership. And that is absolutely an impediment to workers solidarity. If you want to have solidarity with gun owners, you would basically have to convince them to take a giant leap to the left and stop blaming hip-hop music and whatever else the NRA blames for gun violence and get them to blame their bosses. That's a tall order. Because if you just support them and don't change their views, well...where does that leave you? With well armed workers who still maintain nationalist and xenophobic ideology. That is NOT how you build solidarity.

3/1/2018 1:19:21 PM

the mental gymnastics you are playing right now are astounding

30% of people who have a gun in the house are left or left-leaning, 37% have at least a college degree, 53% are black or hispanic, 71% are urban or suburban. Personal protection is by far the most cited reason for owning a gun.

rural white nationalists are not the only people who own guns



[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2018 1:21:20 PM

I never said rural white nationalists are the only people who own guns. I'm saying that the legal justification and legal framework of gun ownership supports the ruling class and white majorities.

If private gun ownership was an actual threat to the ruling class, we wouldn't be allowed to have them.

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2018 1:32:48 PM

Quote :

"Trotsky openly advocates for an armed workforce. He even mocks Ghandi for being a mark-ass-bitch. The entire point of having armed workers is to seize power, not to reform it."

I'm not saying we need an armed workforce at all. I'm just saying gun reform isn't the first step to solving violence.

Quote :

"The problem in the US is that a huge, not insignificant number of gun "shall not be infringed" absolutists are reactionary and right-wing. The rest are DTOWN, who is basically malfunctioning right now as he grapples with his defense of gun ownership and desire to cosmetically reduce gun ownership. And that is absolutely an impediment to workers solidarity. If you want to have solidarity with gun owners, you would basically have to convince them to take a giant leap to the left and stop blaming hip-hop music and whatever else the NRA blames for gun violence and get them to blame their bosses. That's a tall order. Because if you just support them and don't change their views, well...where does that leave you? With well armed workers who still maintain nationalist and xenophobic ideology. That is NOT how you build solidarity."

I'm not asking anyone to support xenophobia or reactionary gun ownership, I just see those people as victims, in a different way, of the same system. If we can get the left and the right to accept this, we can facilitate tolerance via exposure (which has been shown over and over to be the solution to racism). It is the only way forward that doesn't continue or worsen the fascist state.

So, after we unite enough of the working class, we can work on true social reform (not half-assed capitalist measures). When people feel safe, secure, and and fulfilled, violence and opposition to gun reform will both reduce naturally.

But obviously this is a tall fucking order when the media, politicians, and celebrities are all telling us to hate each other.

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2018 1:37:38 PM

^^ so then we also shouldn't have more gun control because gun control was based on white terror?

your point is really falling apart.





[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/1/2018 1:39:04 PM

Quote :

"I just see those people as victims, in a different way, of the same system."

I agree with this. Continued engagement is necessary.

Quote :

"so then we also shouldn't have more gun control because gun control was based on white terror? "

What the fuck are you even on about? We've had multiple, repeated acts of white terror (Dylan Roof) and NOTHING has changed as a result. Jesus, I can see the sparks and gears flying off your violently shaking head right now as you try and misconstrue my stance. White gun terror doesn't generate reform.

3/1/2018 1:50:03 PM

so guns are bad because the 2nd amendment was added to support the white ruling class, but gun control isn't bad even though gun control was passed to support the white ruling class.

getting rid of all guns is good, but reducing the number of guns or making it harder to get guns is bad

that's what you've been arguing

3/1/2018 1:52:27 PM

Quote :

"getting rid of all guns is good, but reducing the number of guns or making it harder to get guns is bad that's what you've been arguing"

Making it harder for poor people to get guns while allowing rich people to stockpile them is bad. He's right there. Sales tax and insurance are bad solutions, just like soda/cigarette taxes.

Banning assault weapons is fine.

Creating a mental health database is monumentally awful and destructive.

Idk what else people are proposing

3/1/2018 1:55:45 PM

Quote :

"Making it harder for poor people to get guns while allowing rich people to stockpile them is bad. He's right there."

that is an okay argument, but i don't think it's one he is making

Quote :

"Idk what else people are proposing"

raising the age to 21, magazine size limits, bringing back waiting periods, making background checks more thorough, strengthening NICS, background checks for all purchases, gun registration, requiring sellers to keep records, etc... are all among ideas that have been proposed

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2018 1:58:44 PM

I've said on multiple occasions that gun reform is disproportionately applied to those most disadvantaged by forms of state oppression

3/1/2018 2:12:08 PM

So you're against gun control?

3/1/2018 2:17:28 PM

Quote :

"raising the age to 21, magazine size limits, bringing back waiting periods, making background checks more thorough, strengthening NICS, background checks for all purchases, gun registration, requiring sellers to keep records, etc... are all among ideas that have been proposed"

Yeah I don't have a problem with any of this (depending on what the more thorough background checks entail).

But I still think it's a band-aid and we're missing an opportunity to focus on underlying causes. It sucks that the only people talking about mental health are suggesting they be put on a list rather than given access to treatment.

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2018 2:18:54 PM

18 year old can't be trusted with AR-15s unless they're shooting them at Muslims overseas.

3/1/2018 3:05:39 PM

Well, if they're shooting at Muslima overseas, they've presumably gone through a lot of training, including boot camp.

3/1/2018 3:52:38 PM

oh snap

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ...more training, and vetting]

3/1/2018 4:25:07 PM

Oh damn I think we’re hitting on a solution here

Mandatory summer boot camp for kids. Teach them to use guns responsibly, while also showing them how super rad the military is.

3/1/2018 4:36:19 PM

Quote :

"So in other words: You are more afraid (reasonably, in your words) of gun violence from poor and often minority communities than you are of government oppression. You actually stressed this point when you italicized the word particularly. So your main reason for defense of the 2nd amendment has more to do about defending your person from these communities than about resisting government tyranny."

None of this is accurate. Not one component of it.

I'm not afraid of gun violence of government oppression.

The emphasis on "particularly" highlights that I don't think there's any reason to flood any community with guns, least of all communities where such a high proportion of the existing guns are used and even owned extra-legally.

My main reason for supporting the 2nd Amendment is that I don't think you should be able to take something from somebody without justifying why they should have to give it up. Saying "guns kill people" is not a reason to take a gun away from a person who doesn't kill people with it and shows no signs that they're ever going to kill people with it.

The threat of government oppression barely registers with me at this point, and personal protection even less so. My gun - you know, the magical one whose very presence turns me into an irrational crazy person - would be more useful as a club or bayonet spear than as a firearm in any home defense scenario.

But to recap what you did here -

JHC: Anybody who thinks the 2nd amendment is about protecting against the government should be scrambling to arm minorities to violently resist the police!
Me: Well, no, you shouldn't arm and encourage violen-
JHC: RACIST! WE GOT A RACIST OVER HERE!

Quote :

"But even if that were the argument, then that basically boils down to, "sorry guys, you're on your own." That's still a problematic position to have: "We can't flood you with guns because you are not to be trusted with them. But also don't take my old civil war rinky dink shotgun that doesn't even work.""

We can't flood any group with guns because a flood of guns is never a good idea in peace time (and, as we've seen, it's frequently a bad idea even in war time).

Every group should have equal opportunity to soberly and safely acquire firearms, and the standards for "soberly and safely" should be applied equally. At the moment, some serious flaws in the criminal justice system mean that all things are not equal in this regard, and even more profound social issues mean that there is a fundamental inequality that spreads beyond that. I'm very much in favor of fixing these issues, but I don't think gun legislation is the way to do it. (I also don't think it's a particularly important manifestation of these issues).

That is all entirely disconnected from the issue of my own weapon, which I quite like but am not passionately attached it. This isn't a "cold, dead hands" proposition. I'd be opposed to the government's taking it away not for its own sake, nor mine, but because it would be a very silly and pointless exercise of government power over people.

Quote :

"This would also be an admission that "more guns= more violence" which is an argument that you would only make in favor of arms reduction, not against."

I AM. IN FAVOR. OF ARMS REDUCTION.

As I have said, repeatedly.

I am not in favor of arms elimination, nor am I in favor of reduction past the point of absurdity, but I have repeatedly suggested mechanisms by which the number of weapons in this country might be made to decline. I'm not in favor of reduction at gunpoint from ATF agents menacing law-abiding citizens, but I've suggested ways by which the reduction might happen voluntarily.

3/1/2018 5:30:39 PM

Quote :

"The threat of government oppression barely registers with me at this point, and personal protection even less so. My gun...would be more useful as a club or bayonet spear than as a firearm in any home defense scenario."

Dude......then why even have it? At least theDuke makes no bones about it. He would kill a home invader if need be.

Quote :

"My main reason for supporting the 2nd Amendment is that I don't think you should be able to take something from somebody without justifying why they should have to give it up. Saying "guns kill people" is not a reason to take a gun away from a person who doesn't kill people with it and shows no signs that they're ever going to kill people with it."

How do you enforce this? There's no clean way to allow this freedom and simultaneously make informed decisions between who is and who is not a liable threat. This is insanely open to abuse and political/ideological manipulation. Which communities do you think would be most likely to acquire guns extra-legally?

Quote :

"Well, no, you shouldn't arm and encourage violen-"

The primary constitutional justification for the proliferation of guns is to resist oppressive tyranny. That pre-supposes the use of violence. Any meaningful resistance to government oppression, would, by definition, be outside the bounds of the law. So if you don't want to arm the victims of government oppression, then can we at the very least establish that nobody really believes in this argument? You're stuck in a quandary where you want to defend the right that theoretically allows the citizenry to do violence against state actors to resist tyranny, while also not wanting to arm those same people.

3/1/2018 6:20:54 PM

*sigh

[Edited on March 1, 2018 at 6:39 PM. Reason : wrong quote]

3/1/2018 6:32:17 PM

Quote :

"Dude......then why even have it?"

This is the wrong question, and it's one that radically anti-gun people always end up asking: Why do you need that? Why do you have that? It's none of your goddamn business why I have it. I am a law-abiding citizen with no history of violence or mental illness.

Why do you have any of the shit you own? Justify all of it. Do you own a vehicle? Cars killed 33,000 people in this country last year, which is comparable to the number of people killed by firearms. You don't need a car. It's 2017. There's Uber. Leave handling the dangerous machine to the professionals.

Will I find a bottle of beer or wine in your house? Kills 88,000 Americans a year and can't possibly be justified.

If I glance at your internet search history, will I find any reference to pornography? Please justify to me your ownership of a device used to support human trafficking.

Here's why I have my rifle: it's fun to shoot, it's cool to look at, and its place in history appeals to me. Where I grew up (and where the gun remains, living, as I do, in the radically anti-gun DC), it could have come in handy to kill a coyote becoming too familiar with the property. We've got dogs that hang out outside and don't want them to get eaten. Occasionally, when you hear hunters or good ol' boys with rifles straying onto the property, safely discharging a round signals to them that they should probably stray right back where they came from.

Quote :

"How do you enforce this? There's no clean way to allow this freedom and simultaneously make informed decisions between who is and who is not a liable threat."

Through a rigorous system of background checks and licensing, as I have described, to identify people with histories of violent crime or mental illness. There's no good "clean way" to do anything that involves taking shit from people. We do the best we can to smooth the edges. There will still almost certainly be some safe folks that don't pass, which is bad, and there will probably be some dangerous folks who do. But we can get those numbers down.

Quote :

"So if you don't want to arm the victims of government oppression, then can we at the very least establish that nobody really believes in this argument? You're stuck in a quandary where you want to defend the right that theoretically allows the citizenry to do violence against state actors to resist tyranny, while also not wanting to arm those same people."

It's not a quandary. I don't think we've reached the level of "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." If we're not there, then arming people and encouraging violence is just incite to riot.

You may disagree and say that we - or at least, victimized groups within the country - are at that point. But it's a separate discussion.

3/2/2018 10:19:49 AM

Quote :

"Oh damn I think we’re hitting on a solution here Mandatory summer boot camp for kids. Teach them to use guns responsibly, while also showing them how super rad the military is."

I'm pretty sure you know that's not what I was suggesting. I just think it's a weak argument to say "You can join the military and use a gun at 18, so therefore you should be able to buy a gun at 18"

3/2/2018 10:27:50 AM

That wasn't my point. My point is that the government doesn't mind senseless killing as long as it's the folks they want dead.

3/2/2018 12:43:12 PM

well that's an entirely different argument.

3/2/2018 12:54:23 PM

No, dude. This is the question that always ends up being asked during gun debates:

Quote :

"Do you own a vehicle?"

You are parroting the line of questioning and deflection that gun advocates always make. That's an odd position to take when you are supposedly opposed to them.

Quote :

"Through a rigorous system of background checks and licensing, as I have described"

You intentionally left off the most important part of my question:

Which communities do you think would be most likely to acquire guns extra-legally?

Quote :

"It's not a quandary. I don't think we've reached the level of "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.""

Oh, well that's pretty fucking convenient, don't you think? That you, as a comfortably middle class, college educated, white male with a (I'm just gonna go ahead and assume here) managerial type desk job that allows you to internet post on company time, don't think things are all that bad for communities and classes that are beneath your social strata. It is paternalistic to set the timetable for another man's freedom.

Quote :

"If we're not there, then arming people and encouraging violence is just incite to riot."

There's a fine line between riot and uprising that you seem unwilling to explore. Language matters:

Ferguson. Baltimore. Standing Rock. Occupy

These were all political motivated demonstrations (and un-armed, by the way), met fiercely by the state (and with broad support of many pro-gun enthusiasts). These were all labeled quite declaratively as riots by the right-wing. But those who were actually in the shit were motivated by their desire to resist government and corporate oppression. Should they have been armed?

Quote :

"But it's a separate discussion."

It's not a separate discussion. It should be at the heart of the debate. To casually dismiss those who are currently under the boot of state and corporate oppression is to erase their existence and their struggle. And it really highlights how this debate is currently only framed around the sensibilities of comfortably middle class white people. To isolate their reality as a "separate" issue means you don't think it is even worthy of discussion, or that they are not entitled to the same right to defend against despotism as you do.

------

You know, I can at least understand the right's defense of gun ownership. They want and desire the ability to kill another human. They don't deny that. It's an abhorrent position that values the defense of individual property over human life, but at least they don't hide it. Guns allow them to maintain their material conditions and to fend off those who wish to seize it. Fine. I disagree with them, but that's where they stand.

I can even understand the radical left's defense of gun ownership. They want Trotskyist armed uprising of workers militias. They want revolution. Guns would help them seize power and the means of production and blah blah blah to the wall with the bourgeoisie and all that lovely stuff. Pretty fucking unlikely to happen in this country, but I get the logic.

Both the left and the right understand the utility of gun ownership: Maintaining power vs seizing power.

But it is the liberal defense of gun ownership that I find the most puzzling. Because you outwardly have to maintain these cosmetically peaceful ideals. Well I would never personally harm another individual, but I understand that guns are necessary to prevent tyranny, but also we shouldn't arm the proletariat because they just might actually fucking do that. It's bizzare. It doesn't make any fucking sense, and you end up inserting unnecessary qualifiers and adopting right-wing language like "mental illness" to decide who does and does not have the right to bear arms:

Was Micah Xavier Johnson, the former war vet who opened fire on Dallas PD over the police killing of black men "mentally ill," or politically motivated? Was he not acting out against state abuses of power (i.e., the police)?

How about Dylan Roof, who intentionally sought out Black church goers and executed them after praying with them? Was he "mentally ill" or politically motivated by his desire to see a white ethno-state?

Because if we just label every single person who uses a gun as "mentally ill" post event, then the term doesn't mean anything and we don't actually make any ground. It just relieves us of our obligation to challenge our base assumptions about what gun ownership actually is, why its protected, and how it is enforced.

3/2/2018 1:27:32 PM

says the man opposed to gun control

3/2/2018 1:29:59 PM

Quote :

""mentally ill" or politically motivated"

why not both?

3/2/2018 1:36:38 PM

Quote :

"30% of people who have a gun in the house are left or left-leaning, 37% have at least a college degree, 53% are black or hispanic, 71% are urban or suburban"

source? I have trouble believing 53% of people who have a gun in the house are black or Hispanic. did you mean that the other way around, with 53% of black and Hispanic households have a gun in the house? Even that is very hard to believe.

3/2/2018 2:49:05 PM

^gun ownership data is hard to come by because of our absurdly lax regulation. DTOWN had to combine a few different data points to get his numbers, I suspect (like combining urban and suburban rather than treating them as different demographics, and I think he just straight up added all minorities together to get that 53% number). According to pew Roughly three-in-ten (31%) whites own a gun, blacks (15%) and hispanics (11%) (see source). That number also increases somewhat with age, and is also predictably cut around party lines, with those identifying as conservative being twice as likely to own guns than those who identify as liberal:




http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/


[Edited on March 2, 2018 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2018 3:02:31 PM

Quote :

"Which communities do you think would be most likely to acquire guns extra-legally?"

I don't think communities as a whole acquire guns at all. I think there are communities where larger numbers of illegal guns are being used to kill people. Baltimore is a good example. Now we get to the part where you say that means I'm a racist who doesn't want black people to have guns because they can't be trusted with them. Then I say that Baltimore's violence problems are the result of a systemic morass of poor governance, economic decline, and longstanding racial-social inequality. Then you either ignore my statements or try another gotcha question to try to catch me in the racist snare. I didn't answer your idiotic question because I already knew the next three steps down that path and didn't want to waste my time, when it all boils down to the simple fact that when a bunch of people are getting shot with guns you're probably not going to fix the problem by introducing more guns.

"You left off the most important part" is rich, coming from you. Justify the shit you own. If that's the standard now - if we have to justify every potentially dangerous item we possess - then please, get started.

Quote :

"It is paternalistic to set the timetable for another man's freedom."

:shrug: I'm not setting it. Every individual and community necessarily sets their own threshold for what they will take.

By the way, where does it fall on the paternalism scale to suggest that black people can only achieve improvement through violence - and that the violence can only be achieved with arms bestowed by white saviors?

Incidentally, I don't post on company time. The office is closed today.

Quote :

"To isolate their reality as a "separate" issue means you don't think it is even worthy of discussion, or that they are not entitled to the same right to defend against despotism as you do."

No. Fundamental social inequality and state oppression merit discussion. Fortunately we are on an internet forum where anyone can create a thread to discuss anything they want. This conversation is about gun control, which some people are discussing. We can discuss it separately because gun control legislation is not going to fix the problems at the root of American social/racial inequality. All the guns could disappear tomorrow, and black people would still be, on average, poorer, less enfranchised, and more incarcerated than white people. Gay people would still face employment discrimination and trans people would have higher rates of suicide and poor people would still have shittier healthcare and educational outcomes. Nothing we do with gun control will fix any of that. It just might affect the number of people who get killed by guns.

Quote :

"Because if we just label every single person who uses a gun as "mentally ill" post event, then the term doesn't mean anything and we don't actually make any ground."

Post-event I don't care if you're crazy. If you killed people, I don't want you to be in society anymore.

To me, mental illness only matters before, as a flag to increase scrutiny of potential weapons buyers.

3/2/2018 3:48:37 PM

This is what you said:

Quote :

"You may disagree and say that we - or at least, victimized groups within the country - are at that point. But it's a separate discussion."

Who is the "we" in this scenario? Do the people you just identified as being oppressed, disenfranchised, poor, and more likely of incarceration not belong in that "we" category? How far do you expand your solidarity? How close to you, personally, do these transgressions of state power have to occur before you feel rebellion is justified? It would be nice if we examined these boundaries.

So when you say:

Quote :

"I'm not setting it. Every individual and community necessarily sets their own threshold for what they will take."

I'm left wondering

A) Why don't you see a common cause with those communities? Is their struggle not your struggle?
B) If those communities took it upon themselves to exercise their right to take up arms against an oppressive state (oppression you seem to deem legitimate), would you view their actions as justifiable?
C) When? When would it be acceptable for them to resist the glaring inequalities and injustices they are forced to endure?

Look, I'm not asking you to go into the hood and be a white savior. I'm just curious as to the means and methods you think is appropriate for these communities to respond to the grinding structural injustices they face on a daily basis. Because if your answer is, "violence is never the answer," then there is no fucking justification for gun ownership to begin with. Why should they be forced to practice endless patience with their oppressors?

Quote :

"By the way, where does it fall on the paternalism scale to suggest that black people can only achieve improvement through violence"

Is this not how ruling class people achieved their status at the top of the social hierarchical scale? How do you think they got up there? Did they not violently exterminate indigenous people, enslave black Americans, and use the systems of the state to incarcerate and subjugate minorities and keep poor people, including poor whites destitute?

Quote :

" All the guns could disappear tomorrow, and black people would still be, on average, poorer, less enfranchised, and more incarcerated than white people."

Ohhhooooohhooo boyyyyy.......And why is that? If there were no violent means of enforcing oppression, how would this imbalance be maintained?

Quote :

"Incidentally, I don't post on company time"

Well aren't you just a good little worker, maximizing your bosses profit margins.

Post on company time, my dude. Ain't no shame.

3/2/2018 4:29:52 PM

Quote :

"DTOWN had to combine a few different data points to get his numbers, I suspect "

i only used pew numbers, pew has numbers newer than 2014

Quote :

"source? I have trouble believing 53% of people who have a gun in the house are black or Hispanic. did you mean that the other way around, with 53% of black and Hispanic households have a gun in the house? Even that is very hard to believe."

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

i don't know why i added them though, i think i meant to apply to percentage of population and combine but got distracted or something. it's not 53%.

32% of black households have guns, 21% of hispanic households have guns, 49% of white households have guns.

my point was that gun owners aren't just white rural uneducated people like JHC keeps implying, which the data supports.

JHC is against gun control since he doesn't think it can be done fairly, but also thinks that people who own guns are racist child killers so it leaves him in quite the moral pickle



[Edited on March 2, 2018 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2018 5:22:21 PM

Quote :

"How close to you, personally, do these transgressions of state power have to occur before you feel rebellion is justified?"

It's not for me to decide when it's justified for other people.

A) I do see common cause with them.
B) No, I wouldn't. Evidently neither would any sizable body of Americans.
C) It's not really a question of when I think it would be acceptable. There's not a cut-off for this. There's no "When the 1,000,000th black guy is killed by the police" answer. There's a difficult calculus to the question of armed resistance, which inevitably varies a little bit from person to person. Whenever the odds of defeat and one's aversion to death and killing are outweighed by the odds of success and the intolerability of the status quo, in very rough terms. Each of those components is complicated unto itself.

I do not believe that "Violence is never the answer." Sometimes it is. I don't think right now is one of those times. Clearly the overwhelming majority of people agree with me or there would be armed insurrections.

Quote :

"Ohhhooooohhooo boyyyyy.......And why is that? If there were no violent means of enforcing oppression, how would this imbalance be maintained?"

Beg pardon. I was thinking of civilian-owned weapons - you know, the sorts of things we're talking about in a "gun control" thread. Silly me.

If the state had no violent means of enforcing anything, then I suppose we'd have anarchy and masses of people killing each other with whatever means came to hand for any number of stupid reasons.

3/2/2018 5:54:31 PM

Okay, now at least we're getting somewhere.

Quote :

"A) I do see common cause with them."

Then what is your recommendation to them that addresses their grievances?

Quote :

"B) No, I wouldn't. Evidently neither would any sizable body of Americans."

And how do they achieve their goals? If all other methods of peaceful redress fail, what options are they left with?

Quote :

"I don't think right now is one of those times. Clearly the overwhelming majority of people agree with me or there would be armed insurrections."

So, not until the majority of civilians were being actively thrusted into the position of powerlessness as their peers? Might that be too late? Might the physical make-up of the demos actually be determining who is worthy of solidarity and who is not? How did that physical make-up come into existence, and how has it been preserved? Do you think changing demographics might be influencing people's attitudes toward gun ownership and access to weaponry?

Quote :

" I was thinking of civilian-owned weapons - you know, the sorts of things we're talking about in a "gun control" thread. Silly me."

I was not. I've already said a few pages ago in response to Tree, that disarmament would have to also include the systems of state (i.e, the police). But that's fine, you didn't know where I was coming from there. There would have to be a mutual disarmament, otherwise we would just have a severely (even moreso) balance of power. Would you agree?

Quote :

"If the state had no violent means of enforcing anything, then I suppose we'd have anarchy and masses of people killing each other with whatever means came to hand for any number of stupid reasons."

So better the state do dictate who can and cannot distribute violence? Okay, well, who controls the state, and how might that influence policy? If minority and disenfranchised classes don't have representation within the body politic, wouldn't that also affect legislation, and therefore the balance of physical power?




[Edited on March 2, 2018 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2018 6:07:53 PM

Quote :

"How close to you, personally, do these transgressions of state power have to occur before you feel rebellion is justified?"

Don't be dumb about it - keep in mind that there is going to be a jury and prosecutor which flatly love the police - But, if a representative of the state is transgressing against you, say trying to murder you or someone else, the law is very clear that you can kill them and you won't spend any time in jail.

For most transgressions the solution is to think like a lawyer and document all that you can. Set up dash cameras, cameras everywhere. Act subservient while secretly plotting against them.

That said, while depending yourself against a rogue cop is fine and all, launching a rebellion to overthrow city hall is a wholly inappropriate tool as it will not in any way help with the problems we're discussing.

3/2/2018 11:21:08 PM