Mass Shotting at South Carolina Club Averted By CCW Holder - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638789]That's kind of my point. Why would the rather racist settlers of the 1800s prevent the extermination of Indians, etc. and why would that have any bearing on current events anyway?[/QUOTE] Yet it applied long after. Where were the gunnists during the 1940s when thousands of innocent Japanese civilians were interned in camps? In the 50s when blacks were lynched? I don't recall any gun activists in the million man march. Were any of them around at Stonewall? Today there is the frequent cries about the steady erosion of rights over the past 15 years. Yet despite this, nothing is done. It all remains within a thin and narrow group advocating strong gun rights - outside of that everything is pretty much free game.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638840]Yet it applied long after. Where were the gunnists during the 1940s when thousands of innocent Japanese civilians were interned in camps? In the 50s when blacks were lynched? I don't recall any gun activists in the million man march. Were any of them around at Stonewall? Today there is the frequent cries about the steady erosion of rights over the past 15 years. Yet despite this, nothing is done. It all remains within a thin and narrow group advocating strong gun rights - outside of that everything is pretty much free game.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/aa_black_panthers_wa.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638840]Yet it applied long after. Where were the gunnists during the 1940s when thousands of innocent Japanese civilians were interned in camps? In the 50s when blacks were lynched? I don't recall any gun activists in the million man march. Were any of them around at Stonewall? Today there is the frequent cries about the steady erosion of rights over the past 15 years. Yet despite this, nothing is done. It all remains within a thin and narrow group advocating strong gun rights - outside of that everything is pretty much free game.[/QUOTE] Rather racist Americans in the grips of an anti-Japanese propaganda fever didn't say anything about the internment camps? I'll remind you that it wasn't just gun owners who didn't do anything about it. Rather racist Americans in the grips of an anti-black propaganda fever didn't say anything about lynchings? I'll remind you that it wasn't just gun owners who didn't do anything about it. Blah, blah, blah. Were you there for the million man march personally interviewing everyone? How do you know none of them owned guns? Because they weren't flying Confederate flags from their lifted pickups? Gun owners don't all conform to your stereotype. You hear a loud minority and that affects your image of other gun owners.

[QUOTE=Apache249;50638848][IMG]http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/aa_black_panthers_wa.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] None of those men belonged to a guns right organisation, and I can't see any whites amongst them. Black panthers had an entirely separate ideology that is only tangentially related to the gunnist one as advocated by the likes of the NRA.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638856]None of those men belonged to a guns right organisation, and I can't see any whites amongst them. Black panthers had an entirely separate ideology that is only tangentially related to the gunnist one as advocated by the likes of the NRA.[/QUOTE] What fucking difference does it make? You're moving the goalposts now. Are only white gun owners the problem? Should the second amendment be rewritten to say, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of black people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, but whites can get fucked."?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638865]What fucking difference does it make? You're moving the goalposts now. Are only white gun owners the problem? Should the second amendment be rewritten to say, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of black people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, but whites can get fucked."?[/QUOTE] Well no, it's just that it's very obvious that the vast majority of the gunnist movement is comprised largely of white males. It doesn't do much to fight for the rights of women, blacks, muslims, or other sorts that historically have been disenfranchised. The point is that the gunnist movement doesn't really protect or advance the rights of Americans. The more I read into this the more blatantly obvious it becomes.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638856]None of those men belonged to a guns right organisation, and I can't see any whites amongst them. Black panthers had an entirely separate ideology that is only tangentially related to the gunnist one as advocated by the likes of the NRA.[/QUOTE] "But those guys were more concerned with black rights instead of gun rights! And none of them were even white!" "No true gunnist..." Keep ignoring the fact that they used the second amendment in exactly the manner you claimed doesn't/didn't happen.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638879]Well no, it's just that it's very obvious that the vast majority of the gunnist movement is comprised largely of white males. It doesn't do much to fight for the rights of women, blacks, muslims, or other sorts that historically have been disenfranchised. The point is that the gunnist movement doesn't really protect or advance the rights of Americans. The more I read into this the more blatantly obvious it becomes.[/QUOTE] It's not intended to be the answer to every question. It's the last answer to the last question. There's quite a bit more overlap in pro-gun and pro-civil rights movements than you want to admit, but that isn't strictly related to anything, because you could also say people who are pro-automobile racing aren't necessarily pro-civil rights, which makes just as much sense because automobile racing and firearms ownership are equally relevant to progressivism.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638879]Well no, it's just that it's very obvious that the vast majority of the gunnist movement is comprised largely of white males. It doesn't do much to fight for the rights of women, blacks, muslims, or other sorts that historically have been disenfranchised. The point is that the gunnist movement doesn't really protect or advance the rights of Americans. The more I read into this the more blatantly obvious it becomes.[/QUOTE] I really don't understand your logic. You're saying that unless you're affiliated with some sort of gun rights organization, you don't truly support the second amendment?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638885]It's not intended to be the answer to every question. It's the last answer to the last question.[/QUOTE] So when do you decide that an uprising by gun owners is the appropriate response, and how is it to be done? [QUOTE=Apache249;50638889]I really don't understand your logic. You're saying that unless you're affiliated with some sort of gun rights organization, you don't truly support the second amendment?[/QUOTE] No, it's that the vast majority of these organisations collectively comprise a gunnist movement with an orthodox ideology that they all agree on. This ideology is one they seek to expand and export, and with extensive lobbying and political organisation they have been successful at getting sections of the public to reinterpret the second amendment in their favour (with the basis that their interpretation is the "original"). Longer term their goal is to expand the role that guns play in American society and to reduce restrictions on them in addition to trying to influence overseas nations to adopt similar legislation or viewpoints so as to encourage the development of gun cultures over there.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638897]So when do you decide that an uprising by gun owners is the appropriate response, and how is it to be done?[/QUOTE] I don't know the answer to that. I'm not exactly a tactician. I exercise my second amendment rights by owning firearms and enjoy shooting and caring for them as a hobby. I sincerely hope I never have to use them against a person. I expect that an attempt to rescind the second amendment will lead to a violent protest. I can't say for sure if I'd be a part of that, namely because I don't think my state's government would enforce it. I think the second amendment is really intended to make sure that an underground resistance can form and function in the event of the 1770s idea of an Orwellian dystopia, which is more complex today than they budgeted for but still very much a possibility.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638910]I don't know the answer to that. I'm not exactly a tactician. I exercise my second amendment rights by owning firearms and enjoy shooting and caring for them as a hobby. I sincerely hope I never have to use them against a person. I expect that an attempt to rescind the second amendment will lead to a violent protest. I can't say for sure if I'd be a part of that, namely because I don't think my state's government would enforce it. I think the second amendment is really intended to make sure that an underground resistance can form and function in the event of the 1770s idea of an Orwellian dystopia, which is more complex today than they budgeted for but still very much a possibility.[/QUOTE] The American War of Independence was much muddier and greyer than a lot of people like to portray it as - much moreso than any American textbook is willing to admit. But I think that it would be a better topic for elsewhere and another time.

I'm aware. But strictly within the context of this issue, they had difficulty getting the arms they needed to fight their war - so they ensured afterward that, in the hopefully-unlikely event that they would ever need to do it again, it wouldn't be as difficult. My point is - crime can be curbed in other ways. A lot of the gun legislation currently on the books is harmful and arbitrary, like the machine gun ban (I can understand wanting to restrict automatics, but an open-bolt gun is still considered a machine gun even if it isn't automatic, so that should be fixed in my opinion). An open dialogue should be held - preferably not involving the NRA, but they'll get involved - to come up with better, more realistic gun control solutions while simultaneously working on our social programs, education, poverty issues, gang culture, et cetera.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638897]So when do you decide that an uprising by gun owners is the appropriate response, and how is it to be done? No, it's that the vast majority of these organisations collectively comprise a gunnist movement with an orthodox ideology that they all agree on. This ideology is one they seek to expand and export, and with extensive lobbying and political organisation they have been successful at getting sections of the public to reinterpret the second amendment in their favour (with the basis that their interpretation is the "original"). Longer term their goal is to expand the role that guns play in American society and to reduce restrictions on them in addition to trying to influence overseas nations to adopt similar legislation or viewpoints so as to encourage the development of gun cultures over there.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. I'm not the most ardent gun rights advocate by any means, but I know people who are, and none of them give a shit about the lack of gun rights in other countries. If anything, people from other countries (such as yourself) have a tendency to try to "export" their ideology to us. You don't want guns in your country? Fine. We don't care. Ours aren't going anywhere.

[img]http://i54.tinypic.com/2z59nh4.jpg[/img] fuck y'all who want gun bans

[QUOTE=Pops;50638974][img]http://i54.tinypic.com/2z59nh4.jpg[/img] fuck y'all who want gun bans[/QUOTE] My favourite one of these is the guy riding the lawnmower while screaming "I have the power of god" as he pulls out a gun and takes aim at the police.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50623795]His post was dumb bait just trying to stir shit up, but to be fair, don't some "active shooter" response classes for unarmed civilians basically advocate doing just this? Swarm the shooter, pile up on him? The idea being that he may be able to shoot one or two of you before the group is on him, but if you just try to run or hide then he will be able to fire with impunity, killing many more people. I've always thought that sounded good in theory. In practice, however, I'm less certain. When shots actually start being fired, the vast majority of people are going to panic. How do you trigger a "fight" response in people that are in full "flight" mode?[/QUOTE] It's true, in active spree shooter situations, law enforcement encourages attacking if cornered and unable to escape, unlike a robbery or something where they advise inaction. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638879]Well no, it's just that it's very obvious that the vast majority of the gunnist movement is comprised largely of white males. It doesn't do much to fight for the rights of women, blacks, muslims, or other sorts that historically have been disenfranchised. The point is that the gunnist movement doesn't really protect or advance the rights of Americans. The more I read into this the more blatantly obvious it becomes.[/QUOTE] Is this relevant? It's like complaining that Shriners doesn't do much for war refugees. That's not the goal of the thing?

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50636969]Why are americans so paranoid about the government? It's like people genuinely think if all the guns were confiscated they'd just start rounding you up by the truck load and sending you to concentration camps.[/QUOTE] Because it's happened before, re: Japanese internment or Trail of Tears. Granted these are extremely different circumstances in extremely different times, but there is definitely a precedent.