2nd amendment and protection

[JoeMorgue]

Oh not the "What if 50 feral hogs are coming toward my children but the government has siezed my guns" argument.

Newsflash other countries have rural and wilderness areas without having a gun nut culture or a classroom getting shot up every other 5 minutes.

 

[Ziggurat]

8:39 AM, 9/8/2022. Ziggurat compares a mass murderer to rape victims.

Rittenhouse didn't murder anyone. He killed two people in self defense.

And Joe thinks rape would be OK if the woman dressed provocatively.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Rittenhouse didn't murder anyone.

*Snort laughs* Okay whatever.

Again dear God the fruit basket this place gives out for the monthly "Who can be the most wrong about the most things with the most toxic attitude in the most hateful way" contest must just be glorious the way you people fight to win it.

 

[Ziggurat]

No he didn't, he killed people because someone threw a gym bag near him.

Yeah, no. That isn't remotely accurate.

His defense was that he thought "they might hurt him" Is someone in the crowd had decided to shoot Ritternhouse in the head, they would have been entitled to the exact same defense he used and would have been found not guilty if judged to the same standards.

Your delusions run deep.

 

[Ziggurat]

*Snort laughs* Okay whatever.

Words have meaning. "Murder" is different than "kill". And "mass murder" is a subset of murder. You were wrong on both counts. It wasn't murder, and the numbers wouldn't have made it "mass" even if it had been. I know you're butt hurt that the jury acquitted him, but they did. Get over it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Right. If a black guy had his mommy drive him over state lines to defend other black people and he shot a white guy and literally every single other thing about it was the same.... skip to the point where you pretend to be outraged where I tell you to your face that you would call the black guy a murderer and we both know it.

 

[Olmstead]

If you can't quantify the damage, then you can't quantify the blame. Nor are they the only beneficiaries. You likely are too.

Well, if I had a better grasp of math and statistics, I probably could run a fairly accurate Fermi estimation. Alas. The courts can hire actual experts to do that once such harm is punishable with up to 50 years in prison.

It's a bit silly to consider me or anyone else a beneficiary since we had little choice in the matter. It's also presumptive to assume that life would somehow be worse because we didn't let companies pump greenhouse gases and other toxic stuff into the atmosphere with abandon.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right. If the a black guy had his mommy drive him over state lines

Any time someone brings this up, it's a guarantee that they're just paroting talking points they've been given.

Way back before the trial, prosecutors tried to make this a thing by claiming he had brought a weapon across state lines, trying to suggest that was an additional offense. But that wasn't true, the weapon was never brought across state lines. And state lines have no other legal relevance. Nothing about this case had anything to do with state lines. Anyone who's still talking about state lines as if it matters is grasping at straws, because it doesn't and it never did.

So... of course you bring up state lines.

to defend other black people and he shot a white guy and literally every single other thing about it was the same.... skip to the point where you pretend to be outraged where I tell you to your face that you would call the black guy a murderer and we both know it.

No. You imagine it.

First off, Rittenhouse killed two white people. So this wasn't a white vs. black thing.

Second, you're wrong about how race affects my views of participants. Perhaps you forgot about the case of Michael Drejka shooting Markeis McGlockton. White man shoots a black man, claims self defense. I didn't think it was self defense, and said so in threads here.

Or we can take an example such as Corey Joseph Marioneaux Jr.. He's a black man charged with attempted murder for shooting at cops. Generally I think shooting at cops is a very bad thing, but this was a 5 AM no knock raid. Corey thought he was defending his home against home invaders. I think that's a legitimate case of self defense, and he should not be charged with any crime.

And lastly, considering the often explicitly racist history of gun control in America, there's more than a little irony to your false accusations.

Crime disproportionately affects blacks, and police are failing to protect many blacks from crime. You want to deny them the ability to protect themselves. I don't. But somehow I'm the racist one.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a bit silly to consider me or anyone else a beneficiary since we had little choice in the matter.

Oh, but you do have a choice. You choose what you buy, for example.

It's also presumptive to assume that life would somehow be worse because we didn't let companies pump greenhouse gases and other toxic stuff into the atmosphere with abandon.

That's not presumptive, that's proven. Greenhouse gasses in particular are an unavoidable consequence of basically any manufacturing process. We have the standard of living that we have because of fossil fuel use. It would not be possible without that. And even under the most optimistic dream of environmentalists about what might be possible in the future, none of that carbon-free industry was possible in the past, and you are a direct beneficiary of all that past activity.

 

[Mojo]

You have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That doesn't confer the right to shoot anyone you want. That isn't part of the 2nd amendment. If an armed mob is shooting people that don't deserve to be shot, the problem isn't that they have guns, but that they are shooting people that don't deserve to be shot.

Not all mobs are well regulated.

 

[gnome]

Oh, but you do have a choice. You choose what you buy, for example.



That's not presumptive, that's proven. Greenhouse gasses in particular are an unavoidable consequence of basically any manufacturing process. We have the standard of living that we have because of fossil fuel use. It would not be possible without that. And even under the most optimistic dream of environmentalists about what might be possible in the future, none of that carbon-free industry was possible in the past, and you are a direct beneficiary of all that past activity.

I actually agree with that. I like the idea of trying to shepherd developing countries into green industrialization if we can, but the first go through we really needed those fossil fuels to advance. The big thing would be to react to the environmental impact before doing too much damage. I think we're a bit overdue there.

 

[Lurch]

I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.

Our boy Kyle interjected himself with his weapon, thereby adding an aggravating factor. If he didn't have that gun, he wouldn't have been attacked and thus would not have needed it.

This stunningly brainless American notion that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves completely skips over the 'arms race' aspect that can only result in yet more harm. An armed society is not a polite society. It's a paranoid society.

 

[Lurch]

Protection is going mean different things depending on location of the person. Rural areas have more wildlife threats to consider, as well as extremely long response times from police. High crime urban areas generally have extreme limits on carry licenses but people living there that are exposed to crime regularly will have a different outlook on needing some personal protection on their person or in their home than those outside looking in. You can quote all the statistics you want about this being counterproductive and more likely to cause injury than help, personal experiences is what will drive people.

Because humans are fundamentally irrational. Part of the reason, in our nature as a social animal, we establish structured societies is to impart order for the good of all. But our reptilian core is always lurking just under the surface, and it's an ongoing battle to impose control over it. Fear of potential violence activates our primitive impulses, giving way to decisions that can be counter productive. Like allowing unrestricted open carry.

 

[arayder]

The United States government has ~1,350,000 active duty troops and another ~800,000 in reserve status. It has tanks, rockets, missile, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, cruise missile, submarines, fighter jets, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cletus is going to do exactly what with his pump action 12 gauge?

Raid the National Guard Armory?

 

[Stacyhs]

Our boy Kyle interjected himself with his weapon, thereby adding an aggravating factor. If he didn't have that gun, he wouldn't have been attacked and thus would not have needed it.

Thank you for explaining that to Zig. He seems to be having trouble understanding that Rittenhouse bringing a damn gun resulted in the death of 2 men whereas how a woman dresses does not result in her being raped.

This stunningly brainless American notion that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves completely skips over the 'arms race' aspect that can only result in yet more harm. An armed society is not a polite society. It's a paranoid society.

Well said. I've always said that conservatism is rooted in fear.

 

[Olmstead]

That's not presumptive, that's proven. Greenhouse gasses in particular are an unavoidable consequence of basically any manufacturing process. We have the standard of living that we have because of fossil fuel use. It would not be possible without that. And even under the most optimistic dream of environmentalists about what might be possible in the future, none of that carbon-free industry was possible in the past, and you are a direct beneficiary of all that past activity.

In your scenario, the Koch brothers were valiant defenders of modern civilization who used their vast wealth to keep environmentalist from destroying our way of life. I don't buy it.

This isn't an either-or situation. More could have been done without negative impacts on society, and people like the Koch brothers prevented more from being done, and they did it out of their own greed, and their greed only benefitted them. Without them, renewable energy would be further along and carbon tax would be further along. They have blood on their hands.

 

[Hans]

The United States government has ~1,350,000 active duty troops and another ~800,000 in reserve status. It has tanks, rockets, missile, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, cruise missile, submarines, fighter jets, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cletus is going to do exactly what with his pump action 12 gauge?

The problem is in such an emergency the armed forces may fracture. It did so in the Civil war with some 20% of the Army and bit more of the Navy joining the Confederacy. If such a situation arises - as shown in foreign countries in coups and rebellions - a percent will support the government, a percent the 'rebels' and another part may elect to remain neutral or bid them time, another part may disband themselves so as to not be involved.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Oh, but you do have a choice. You choose what you buy, for example.



That's not presumptive, that's proven. Greenhouse gasses in particular are an unavoidable consequence of basically any manufacturing process. We have the standard of living that we have because of fossil fuel use. It would not be possible without that. And even under the most optimistic dream of environmentalists about what might be possible in the future, none of that carbon-free industry was possible in the past, and you are a direct beneficiary of all that past activity.

They're not unavoidable. We burned fossil fuels for two reasons, because it was easy, and because it was cheap. It was only cheap because the government heavily subsidized extraction, essentially mandating that the nation would be built on fossil fuels. Had this not happened, then we'd have had electric cars from the start. What do you think electric cars would have looked like after a hundred years of development like the gasoline/diesel cars had? All of that carbon-free industry was possible in the past, and was actively being pursued.

 

[Craig4]

I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.

The disgusting little **** should have been shot. Instead he got lucky with a weak prosecutor and corrupt judge. His reward was losing his virginity to Laura Ingrahm while he told her about killing a Democrat.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Think that he can...Raid the National Guard Armory?

Accuracy.