Politics: The Final Frontier

[smjjames]

Heh, nice reference there HoonDing.

@ The earlier discussion on the activists blocking a guys retirement: If they want it so bad, maybe they can offer to buy it from him? That way both sides will be happy, he gets to retire and the activists get to save the restaurant.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I'll bet my hat he's some flavor of alt-right incel that ranted on 4chan or reddit.

does it count as alt-right if 30% o' voters agree with a vast majority ' the nut job's venom?

this most recent high-profile mass killer were raging 'gainst immigrants of color for taking American jobs and he were angry at corporations for giving American jobs to immigrants. thanks to second amendment, unlike his european "comrades" who were helpless 'gainst the immigrant flood, americans 'could take matters into their own hands and force necessary population control by killing off the immigrant flood. the killer were afeared o' the US becoming homogenous democratic party and he didn't want the fake media to blame trump for his murders 'cause he were embracing his curious notions before trump became President. etc.

other than the killer's second amendment solution o' killing immigrants en masse, we wouldn't be shocked to hear the killer's words being parroted by a majority increasingly mainstream trump supporters. 

however, the willingness to kill 'cause o' misguided notions is a massive difference 'tween the el paso killer and trump's core supporters. thank God. am not suggesting the evils o' the killer is shared by the core supporters. however, the manufactured fear which inspired the killer appears to be anything other than alt. the notion o' immigrants taking the jobs o' real Americans and eroding cultural foundations has been the nightmare beast conjured by more than just a few skeevy politicians over the past couple hundred years. heck, nativism and fundamentalism were arguable even more widespread in the 1920s than today.

the killer's manifesto reads as stoopid and twisted, reaching asinine conclusions thanks to a paucity o' anything but fear... but the fear is not alt. the fear is increasing mainstream.

[Agiel]

Once again I'm astounded at how actual politicians are getting worked up about the football hooliganism of Portland "antifas" while there's a whole heap of Timothy McVeys out there ready to take out their frustrations on larger society.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

does it count as alt-right if 30% o' voters agree with a vast majority ' the nut job's venom?

this most recent high-profile mass killer were raging 'gainst immigrants of color for taking American jobs and he were angry at corporations for giving American jobs to immigrants. thanks to second amendment, unlike his european "comrades" who were helpless 'gainst the immigrant flood, americans 'could take matters into their own hands and force necessary population control by killing off the immigrant flood. the killer were afeared o' the US becoming homogenous democratic party and he didn't want the fake media to blame trump for his murders 'cause he were embracing his curious notions before trump became President. etc.

other than the killer's second amendment solution o' killing immigrants en masse, we wouldn't be shocked to hear the killer's words being parroted by a majority increasingly mainstream trump supporters. 

however, the willingness to kill 'cause o' misguided notions is a massive difference 'tween the el paso killer and trump's core supporters. thank God. am not suggesting the evils o' the killer is shared by the core supporters. however, the manufactured fear which inspired the killer appears to be anything other than alt. the notion o' immigrants taking the jobs o' real Americans and eroding cultural foundations has been the nightmare beast conjured by more than just a few skeevy politicians over the past couple hundred years. heck, nativism and fundamentalism were arguable even more widespread in the 1920s than today.

the killer's manifesto reads as stoopid and twisted, reaching asinine conclusions thanks to a paucity o' anything but fear... but the fear is not alt. the fear is increasing mainstream.

It wouldn't surprise me if that number was higher, but yes in the sense of "alt-right" as describing a particular range of nationalist politics rather than not being "mainstream right-wing politics".  It's nomenclature that doesn't necessarily resemble reality, like how indie rock isn't necessarily independently published rock music.  I share your unease concerning this risen reactionary beliefs and can think of a couple of terms more accurate than "alt-right", but calling things fascist or racist upset certain sensibilities.

27 minutes ago, Agiel said:

Once again I'm astounded at how actual politicians are getting worked up about the football hooliganism of Portland "antifas" while there's a whole heap of Timothy McVeys out there ready to take out their frustrations on larger society.

It's because they have ties to groups antifa brawls with, like the Proud Boys and 3%ers. And because those McVeys will more than likely vote for them.

Edited August 4, 2019 by KaineParker

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

heck, nativism and fundamentalism were arguable even more widespread in the 1920s than today.

 

I think you're probably right about that. Firearms were less expensive (relatively) and easier to come by in those days as well. At some point between then and now we've passed from acts of petty bullying and beatings to mass murder becoming the means of expression. It's a fair point that the sophistication of firearms today has made the scale of these acts frighteningly larger. But what I am curious about it why the decision to commit murder for this reason (a political motive as opposed to personal or financial) comes so much easier to people today? Is mental illness more prevalent now that it has been? Irrational fear mongering by political figures is not new. Racism, nativisim, nationalisim are hardly new. Availability of firearms is not new. What changed starting in the early 2000's? Between 1891 and ending with Columbine in 1999 there were 17. Since 2000 El Paso is the 23rd (all this according to Time magazine Their timeline ended in 2017, I counted the rest myself).  The thing that comes to mind is the ability to effectively network with like minded people that ubiquitous high speed internet access has brought. Anger feeds anger and intensity rises exponentially. 

Media and political fear mongering is another huge factor. Although also not new. It draws eyes to TV sets, column inches, web sites, and voting booths. It's good business for them to stoke the fire and splash a little gas in from time to time. The effect is also exponentially higher because the internet puts more eyes on it. It also allows people to consume news in bite sized pieces that often causes the stories to be out of context. It would take a concerted effort by political leaders, news commentators, editors, and webmasters to "turn down the temperature" a little. Not holding my breath on that one. 

I'd love to see Trump give a prime time address from the oval office on TV and tell everyone that the people they see every day on the streets, stores, protests, etc are not their enemies. Political differences are not a life and death struggle. Of course that will never happen either. Not from him. Not from Obama or anyone else either. You are fond of pointing out lost opportunities for real leadership and potential change for the better. The responses to mass shooting in recent years is certainly a series of lost opportunities. Like all the rest the responses to this will be "take away their guns" and "Trump supporters are all racists" and so on. More gas is splashed on the bonfire and another opportunity is lost. 

[Gorgon]

I wonder if the first shooter is really really pissed that the second shooter stole his thunder. 

 

 

[algroth]

Posted before Dayton btw, so that makes 250 mass shootings in the USA in just 216 days.

[smjjames]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

@Gromnr (for context)

I'd love to see Trump give a prime time address from the oval office on TV and tell everyone that the people they see every day on the streets, stores, protests, etc are not their enemies. Political differences are not a life and death struggle. Of course that will never happen either. Not from him. Not from Obama or anyone else either. You are fond of pointing out lost opportunities for real leadership and potential change for the better. The responses to mass shooting in recent years is certainly a series of lost opportunities. Like all the rest the responses to this will be "take away their guns" and "Trump supporters are all racists" and so on. More gas is splashed on the bonfire and another opportunity is lost. 

I could see Obama doing that, but partisans are going to be partisans and not listen to him anyway. I'll counter your responses with "MOAR GUNZZZZZZZZ!!!1!!1!" and "What's needed is a good guy with a gun". Oh wait, but it took place in Texas where roughly 35.7% (give or take several tenths of a percent, I checked several sources) of the population own guns and it's an open carry state, thus you'd (statistically at least, actual numbers and expectations would vary) expect about a third of people at any given gun-ok location to have a gun. So, where were the 'good guys/gals with guns'? Rescuing kids in one case. The 'good guys with guns' who stopped the shooter (though the Texas one surrendered voluntarily) were cops, he didn't surrender because civillians with guns threw themselves at him like the NRA apparently believes happens in real life nor did he surrender because 'Oh wait, you've got a gun too *drops gun*'. It's not at you specifically mind, just the whole general attitude.

On gun grabs, even if someone wanted to, the logistics would be hell because there are so many guns in the US.

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 What changed starting in the early 2000's? Between 1891 and ending with Columbine in 1999 there were 17. Since 2000 El Paso is the 23rd (all this according to Time magazine Their timeline ended in 2017, I counted the rest myself).  The thing that comes to mind is the ability to effectively network with like minded people that ubiquitous high speed internet access has brought. Anger feeds anger and intensity rises exponentially.

Didn't the assault weapon ban end in the early 2000's? Both though are just two factors among many.

 

3 hours ago, Gorgon said:

I wonder if the first shooter is really really pissed that the second shooter stole his thunder.

Chances are he'd probably be quietly cheering the other guy on, though the second guy is dead.

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I think you're probably right about that. Firearms were less expensive (relatively) and easier to come by in those days as well.

population and access. you are kinda wrong on firearms access, at least for most americans. like it or not, firearms restrictions were still largely community-based in 1920 and they were frequent draconian.  yeah, in texas and rural kentucky you could walk into a firearms store and purchase your own personal armory, but then you gotta wonder what your young mass killer would do with such weapons. likely didn't own personal transportation and places such as the el paso walmart didn't exist. so our young killer knows that there is lots o' dirty italians in new york, but if he is from new york he needs travel to purchase his weapons and chances are he is doing such travel by train 'cause even buses is still kinda rare and is unlikely to get killer where he wants to go w/o considerable efforts. 

start with recognition you got less than 1/4 of current population, so these lightning strike quality occurrences o' a person broken enough to do such horror is less common. add awareness that personal access to mass media would also be reduced. other than the guy in vegas, most o' these clowns is making a political statement o' some kind. so let's assume our 1920s nativist new yorker manages to get his guns back to nyc w/o anybody tipping off the cops, which is gonna be problematic 'cause unless you are wealthy, the notion o' 1920s privacy is the stuff o' myth. but ok, you get back to ny and you keep your weapons stockpile secret from family and neighbors/roomates/whatever. you head down to the hudson river ferry intent on doing harm to immigrants, but what 'bout your message? send your manifesto to the ny times and new york herald. what is chances your manifesto gets printed even in part? 

etc.

so smaller nation with more limited access to media, transportation and, for many people, weapons. sad reality is that the likely target o' the 1920s mass killer would be the italian or irish family down the street or on the edge of town and how likely would it be that such events happened more than once w/o much news coverage? too often?

as an aside, and only tangential related, lizzie borden were a nativist. most likely reason why she killed family in 1892 were 'cause she were angry at her father for not moving away from all the dirty irish and portuguese immigrants living nearby. lizzie attempted to purchase poison the day before she used the hatchet on her family. on the day o' the murders, she called for a doctor, but rather than send for the irish-catholic doctor who lived next door, or the catholic french-canadian who lived diagonal from the bordens, the family's irish servant were sent into town to fetch a proper yankee doctor. turns out her bigotry were kinda well-known and hardly abnormal for the times. the original suspect for the murders were a portuguese immigrant. 

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

15 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

start with recognition you got less than 1/4 of current population

You mean 1/3 of current population, I checked it on wikipedia and it was about 106 million in 1920. You'd have to go back to the turn of the 20th century to have roughly a quarter of the current population.

[Hurlshort]

Well I'm over guns at this point. I mean, I was over them after a classroom full of 1st graders was shot to death: 

So yeah, just over it. But hey, hopes and prayers and all that. Lets argue over semantics and entrench ourselves along party lines like we always do, because it seems to be really helping. 

[Malcador]

If you want a laugh 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

If you want a laugh 

 

Reddit needs to be wiped from the face of the earth.

 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

I could see Obama doing that, but partisans are going to be partisans and not listen to him anyway. I'll counter your responses with "MOAR GUNZZZZZZZZ!!!1!!1!" and "What's needed is a good guy with a gun". Oh wait, but it took place in Texas where roughly 35.7% (give or take several tenths of a percent, I checked several sources) of the population own guns and it's an open carry state, thus you'd (statistically at least, actual numbers and expectations would vary) expect about a third of people at any given gun-ok location to have a gun. So, where were the 'good guys/gals with guns'? Rescuing kids in one case. The 'good guys with guns' who stopped the shooter (though the Texas one surrendered voluntarily) were cops, he didn't surrender because civillians with guns threw themselves at him like the NRA apparently believes happens in real life nor did he surrender because 'Oh wait, you've got a gun too *drops gun*'. It's not at you specifically mind, just the whole general attitude

Isn't Wallmart a "gun free zone"? Which would make all law abiding citizens not taking their gun there? Which would make your percentage rant meaningless?

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

 

So yeah, just over it. But hey, hopes and prayers and all that. Lets argue over semantics and entrench ourselves along party lines like we always do, because it seems to be really helping. 

am personal not a gun honk, but the semantics is kinda important. for example, 'ccording to the washington post, there has been 165 mass shootings in the US... since august 1, 1966.  this year, which is admitted high for fatalities from mass shootings, has resulted in 51 deaths so far. that is compared to near approx. 9k deaths from firearms to date and it ignores the additional 22k deaths one expects will be resulting from firearm suicides each year (have explained more than once how suicide is first and foremost an act o' convenience, as difficult as that may be for some to believe.) is semantics to question which numbers is more relevant to gun control debate? is semantics to point out hypocrisy o' focusing on mass shootings? 

simple define "mass shooting" is gonna serious change debate. how many fatalities? do we ignore gang and drug related crimes? how 'bout domestic violence incidents? we see a post 'bove suggesting there has been 250 mass shootings thus far this year. how does that mesh with washington post and stanford and other sources? does it matter? rand suggests mass shooting events has yearly peaks and valleys, but averages haven't changed much over last few decades. what has changed has been reporting and definitions. does that even matter though? perhaps you believe even 1 mass shooting per year is too many? 

and speaking o' semantics, maybe we should change to mass killing instead o' mass shooting? bombings is disturbing popular in russia and a few other eastern european nations. put tight controls on guns don't appear to end mass murders in many countries. heck, trucks has become more popular as a weapon o' choice for mass killings in recent years. 

semantics is also important 'cause o' that annoying second amendment. what is the kinda weapon a person would/should have access to to support the founder's notion o' "a well-regulated militia." saturday night special or ar-15 seems more appropriate?  maybe you thinks such considerations is silly considering the 2nd amendment were from before the US had a standing army and the whole point o' the 2nd amendment is m00t in 2019? ok, but then how are you gonna get rid o' the 2nd amendment? semantics aside, how are you gonna get numbers for constitutional convention or amendment repeal. Congress wouldn't even pass bump stock legislation for chrissakes. 

semantics is kinda important for this one. for example, have no idea what folks mean by "assault weapon" 'til they explain... and even then is clear folks don't always know what they is talking 'bout. 

'ccording to the cdc, 178 kids died from the flu last year and is every reason to believe many o' those deaths were avoidable. far more kids died from flu than mass shootings. am not suggesting mass shooting and flu death preventions is mutual exclusive, but the outrage over shootings far exceeds the flu stuff... and the flu deaths is, from a practical pov, far easier to prevent.

our personal weapon o' choice for home defense is something along the lines of

it is more accurate and reliable in the hands o' Gromnir who has limited handgun training but has been in multiple high pressure situations and is aware that our crappy handgun marksmanship would become even worse in a life-or-death situation, life-or-death and probable in the dark with us shaking off sleep. kids get ahold o' the bat somehow and am far less concerned 'bout accidental fatalities. it never jams. 

as an aside, on average, more people is killed yearly with blunt force weapons than die in mass shootings... and the numbers ain't even close.

legal issues aside, am in favor o' more than a few suggested gun control options, but unfortunate, the semantics is unavoidable and is core to the gun control debate in this country. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps for those who believe we never say anything positive 'bout trump, am recognizing that while the law may be iffy, the ATF ban on bump stocks is a good thing. trump administration did not wait for Congress and did not listen to protests o' the nra, protests which we still find mind boggling. ATF rule will be litigated, but am suspecting if the ban fails, Congress will functional be forced to take action. good on trump for doing what common sense shoulda' made an obvious choice for folks in washington. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Gromnir

[ShadySands]

I have read it and some of the comments a quick read. One thing I saw I wanted to point out, but not on that thread, was a comment about the different tallies of mass shootings.

The reason that there are different mass shooting numbers comes down to how they want to define mass shootings. The 251 number that appeared in my news feed this morning had it as any shooting where 4 or more people are shot not including the shooter (s). Obviously if you tighten the parameters the numbers will go down.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ was the source of that info.

Still seems like a silly thing to be hung up on considering.

Edited August 7, 2019 by ShadySands
Wasn't posting for some reason and seems like Grom already hit that note while I was trying to get this to post

[smjjames]

9 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Isn't Wallmart a "gun free zone"? Which would make all law abiding citizens not taking their gun there? Which would make your percentage rant meaningless?

I don't know whether that specific location was or not. However, that still doesn't exclude anybody outside who happened to have a gun.

@Gromnir: Unfortunately for us (or in some ways, fortunately), the founders never defined what 'a well regulated militia' entails or how you should regulate it or ofer in any way of details. Their contemporaries probably understood what they were talking about, but as you state, it was written in a completely different era.

As for what sort of weapons, if we restrict things to what was contemporary (which seems reasonable, right? Things like the AK and Uzis were still over a 100 years in the future at that point), we'd include weapons like the Kentucky rifle or similar modern weapons. As pistols go, well, it depends on how far you take the contemporary equivalent since modern single shot pistols are what Gromnir was probably referring to by 'saturday night special'. Though revolvers did exist, but didn't become widespread until 50 years later.

[Guard Dog]

 

[smjjames]

*sigh* *rolls eyes hard in GDs face*

edit: Whether sarcasm or not, doing that kind of BS isn't constructive and only deserves an eye roll response because it's used to kill debate then and there. There are certainly some who say we should do that because it's that desperate of a measure, but theres the constructive way to talk about it and the unconstructive way to talk about it.

Edited August 4, 2019 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

27 minutes ago, smjjames said:

*sigh* *rolls eyes hard in GDs face*

edit: Whether sarcasm or not, doing that kind of BS isn't constructive and only deserves an eye roll response because it's used to kill debate then and there. There are certainly some who say we should do that because it's that desperate of a measure, but theres the constructive way to talk about it and the unconstructive way to talk about it.

OK, tell me a constructive way to "ban guns" that does not involve making the private property of millions of people who have committed no crimes suddenly illegal?  What do YOU have in mind? If you want to ban new sales but grandfather in existing arms, I'm listening. Of course you are talking about a gun buying spree like no other before that goes into effect. And there are literally millions of them in private hands now. What do you have in mind?

Remember any law passed must be enforced. So banning "assault weapons" whatever the hell they are no one can agree, means going and confiscating the ones the owners are unwilling to turn in. I've made it clear what I will do if ever put to such a choice. 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

In other news a police officer in Arlington TX goes to do a welfare check on a woman yesterday. As he approached calling out for her, her dog came out and approached the cop. The cop, frighted as he was by a 40 lb lab mix, pulls out his pistol and fires three times from point blank range. And misses the dog. He did hit the woman he came to do a welfare check on though. Killed her stone cold dead. Another job well done by the cops. She would probably be grateful to have been "served and protected". If she wasn't dead. Had that thug in government uniform been a better shot her dog would be dead. I'm sure she'd be happy then right?  https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/us/arlington-officer-kills-woman-while-shooting-at-dog/index.html

Speaking of banning guns we should be disarming these f-----g guys. But government is gonna government. 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Well I'm over guns at this point. I mean, I was over them after a classroom full of 1st graders was shot to death: 

 

So yeah, just over it. But hey, hopes and prayers and all that. Lets argue over semantics and entrench ourselves along party lines like we always do, because it seems to be really helping. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked James. What solution is there that does not involve the confiscation of private property, at gunpoint no less, of millions of people who have committed no crime? That is tantamount to punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. 

[Skarpen]

47 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I don't know whether that specific location was or not. However, that still doesn't exclude anybody outside who happened to have a gun.

Um, I'm pretty sure the only people outside of this Walmart were the people leaving or going to Walmart based on google street view there is nothing else in vicinity. 

42 minutes ago, smjjames said:

*sigh* *rolls eyes hard in GDs face*

edit: Whether sarcasm or not, doing that kind of BS isn't constructive and only deserves an eye roll response because it's used to kill debate then and there. There are certainly some who say we should do that because it's that desperate of a measure, but theres the constructive way to talk about it and the unconstructive way to talk about it.

What is constructive then? Because all I ever hear from the "ban guns" people is repeating slogans or things that are impossible to implement.

[Skarpen]

20 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

In other news a police officer in Arlington TX goes to do a welfare check on a woman yesterday. As he approached calling out for her, her dog came out and approached the cop. The cop, frighted as he was by a 40 lb lab mix, pulls out his pistol and fires three times from point blank range. And misses the dog. He did hit the woman he came to do a welfare check on though. Killed her stone cold dead. Another job well done by the cops. She would probably be grateful to have been "served and protected". If she wasn't dead. Had that thug in government uniform been a better shot her dog would be dead. I'm sure she'd be happy then right?  https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/us/arlington-officer-kills-woman-while-shooting-at-dog/index.html

Speaking of banning guns we should be disarming these f-----g guys. But government is gonna government. 

Horrible. I always thought US police should be disbanded immediately after the moronic court verdict saying that they don't have to "serve and protect" or something in those lines. And then formed anew ensuring the "serve and protect" part is reinstated. 

 

[HoonDing]

The rest of the world should build a wall around Amerika and make Trump pay for it.