Stop pretending you care.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:25:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Stop pretending you care.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Stop pretending you care.  (Read 2573 times)
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2016, 04:45:20 PM »

If your response to each and every tragedy like this is nothing, which it is, why even bother to report these shootings? Why not leave them for the ‘and finally’ columns in newspapers? If Sandy Hook didn’t change anything, then I doubt the deaths of a bunch of Hispanic gays is going to change anything.
Well, you are right about that (and Charleston). The massacre of a bunch of rich, lily white seven year olds did send the Gated Community Democrats into a tizzy. They spent a good deal of money and they lost. They lost interest when black people were slaughtered by a white-supremacist terrorist (who, as Adam Lanza proved, could also be their son as well, give or take the Nazism) and besides a handful of wealthy gays, most in that clique up there have no interest in the lives of Hispanic gays in Orlando.

After Sandy Hook, a background check bill was filibustered in the Senate. An attempt to renew the federal assault weapons ban failed. A bill to allow the CDC to study the cause of and solutions to gun violence went nowhere. After Charleston, a bill to reform background checks went nowhere. After Roseburg and the President’s plea, no response was taken. After San Bernardino bills went nowhere. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
And what did you do to help? How many calls did you make to your Senator? How much money did you raise for your cause? I’m playing my part in the pro-gun cause. I’ve volunteered and worked for pro-gun candidates. We’re not winning this issue because Congress is complacent; we’re winning this issue because you are complacent. An emotionally charged rant on Atlas does about as much good as Carl’s rant over on Facebook. Congratulations, you guys have changed absolutely nothing!

‘Oh but wait, but this was Islamic terror.’

No. This wasn’t the Bataclan. This wasn’t a mass planned, defying the odds series of co-ordinated attacks. It was an act of domestic terror. It does not matter what ideology someone taps into, or tries to self-justify.

I’m going to repeat this; IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IDEOLOGY SOMEONE TAPS INTO.

It doesn’t matter whether it was Islamist, or white-supremacist, or dominionist. The shooter was not a foreigner, he wasn’t a weird basement dwelling kid. He was 29. He was middle class, married. He was a security guard and he was able, last week to buy weapons and walk out the f-cking store with them.
This was terrorism. And this was exactly like the Bataclan. Just because Al Baghdadi didn’t sanction this action personally doesn’t mean that it was not terrorism. Dylan Wolf and Omar Mateeb terrorized people to prove their points. They wanted to inspire a ripple effect of further violence and foster a climate of fear. Dylan Wolf and Omar Mateeb are terrorists, and both were radicalized here on their own accord. But they didn’t become terrorists until they opened fire; Mateeb still had rights. He was never convicted of a crime. Had his wife reported for him for domestic violence, existing law would have made the terror watch-list irrelevant and he wouldn’t have been able to buy the guns. Had the FBI looked into the Mosque that he was, along with a suicide bomber in Syria, attending, they might have gotten something (and no, I don’t support spying on Mosques without probable cause, but they had that in this case).

The fact that the shooter had a father who publicly praised the Taliban (literally, he was waving a red flag right in the FBI’s faces) and that the son was born and raised in America and yet still became a radicalized terrorist is indeed concerning and the culture that formulated this hatred and the resulting attack is the main issue here IMO.

And he bought an AR-15. The weapon of choice for mass shooters. They should put it on the box. They should advertise it; why buy anything else? Why else would you need an AR-15? Is it a choice weapon for farmers, for hunters? Is it the number one weapon for law enforcement? Is there an Olympic shooting event that requires expert training with an AR-15?
My 81 year old Great Uncle has one though due to his Parkinsons he isn’t able to shoot it. Is he going to go out and kill people? Have you ever wondered that maybe, just maybe, some people like shooting. They like shooting at bottles hundreds of feet of way. It’s the same reason why 13 year old kids like blowing shit up with fire-works.

Plus the AR-15 is actually a popular hunting rifle; I’ve only been hunting a handful of times, and I’ve only actually managed to get a hit only once, so I’m not an expert on anything hunting related. But some of my friends, especially the real Florida crackers who grew up hunting and lived their whole lives in rural north Florida are very fond of the AR-15 for hunting. It's more popular than I suspected; hell, just a month ago I was sitting with a friend of mine who was showing me a video of helicopter based hog shooting with a gun that reminded me of something off a tank!

And like every other issue that directly affects LGBT Americans, this whole event get's turned around by right wing reactionaries to make it about them and their rights and their guns and their freedoms. The right of gays to marry became more about their right to not marry them, the right of gays to not be discriminated against became about their right to religious freedom or what ever cognitive bullsh**t they washed in public, the rights of trans people to use a bathroom becomes about 'rapists and mothers and daughters' and every mans stupid scatological fetish.
This wasn’t just an attack on the LGBT community, though. Do you think that if for whatever reason he couldn’t have attacked a gay bar that he wouldn’t have instead shot up a Baptist Church, an army recruiting center, a Synagogue, or even another Mosque? This was an attack on all of America, on everyone who he deems an infidel. He just chose to exert his hatred towards the gay community, perhaps because the gay community in America is more empowered than ever before.

As for your other claims, that isn’t really an issue but since I’m on the subject of liberty here, I might as well address them: gay people have a right to get married, they should have had it decades ago, and it isn’t going to change because a group of social conservatives are angry. Likewise, Pastor Durante over at Trinity Lutheran back in my hometown has the right to his religious views and doesn’t have to marry two men or two women if he so chooses. The right to religious freedom is constitutionally protected and that shouldn’t be changed just because the tides are now in favor of marriage equality.  As for the Wedding Cake stuff, that’s a case by case issue and the Bathroom issue is nothing more than a scam concocted by the Family Research Council and other groups to get the olds all hot and bothered.

So don't pretend you care about them for who they are and who they love and why they were there together in a 'safe space' an actual safe space to celebrate who they are and for their friends to celebrate with them. Don't offer hollow solidarity if you've never once showed it for a single LGBT person. You don't get to claim them now if you never claimed them before.
This is true; I too am annoyed that Franklin Graham had his “rapid response team” in Orlando ready to disguise their asinine conversion therapy as “grief consoling.” Likewise, it is annoying that many of those who are so strongly in defense of their gun rights are against your right to marriage, or the right of Muslims to practice their religion in peace without government monitoring (which should almost never be practiced, though the Fort Pierce Mosque and the two watch-list suspects who both ended up acting on their beliefs is the rare exception).
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2016, 04:45:27 PM »

AR-15s are pretty awesome guns. I've only gone shooting once (it's definitely not my thing), but it was easily my favorite of the dozen or so guns I tried. My dad owns one. If I were to buy a gun, which I probably will never do, it would probably be an AR-15.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2016, 05:01:59 PM »

Just because guns were used to mass-murder gays (just like guns were used in mass murders of non-gays), doesn't make gun control a gay issue.

Gun control might not be a gay rights issue, but if conservative Republicans stopped enabling hatred, things like this would be less likely to happen.  What do they expect people to think or do when they go around calling LGBT people sinful and against God?  When you take a bunch of really religious people and fire them up by constantly telling them that some people are sinners and going to hell, it's not a very big leap to think that a few of them might start to get violent.  Anyone that knows anything about history will know that a lot of the biggest wars and conflicts in our history were fought over religious people accusing other people of being sinners and against their religion.  It's irresponsible, dangerous, and just plain mean.  

Before someone responds to me, "but this guy was a muslim!"  -  Yeah, that's true, but there was another white conservative dude that tried to bring an assault rifle to the LA pride parade on the same day.  It's not the religion that matters.  It's the hate.  That's the thing that those people share in common, and it's the thing that we should be railing against.  When there's a bunch of hateful people out there and their political leaders are stoking their passions by villifying vulnerable minority communities, easy access to firearms is just a tangentially related issue that makes it easier for them to take revenge on all of the people they hate.

That's been debunked.  And the Orlando shooter was obviously not motivated to commit this shooting by Anti-Gay Republicans, he was motivated by his religion.  So no, this shooting wouldn't have been any less likely to happen if Republicans didn't "enable hatred"
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2016, 05:07:51 PM »

I do care. I care so much about the people hurt that I dislike it when anyone uses this as a reason to push for more or less gun control.

To be clear, I think the idea of gun free zones is stupid, especially when it can't be enforced by armed personnel/guards. If we make gun free zones mandatory, make two or more trained, psychologically tested, and background checked security guards mandatory alongside them.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2016, 05:08:24 PM »

I think that pushing gun control in USA no matter how good idea it is, is a lost cause, and as such this tragedy is better used to make hostility toward gay people even less acceptable than it is today. Also if the Left doesn't use it, the Right will.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2016, 05:10:33 PM »

While I'm not quite as on board with this snatching assault weapons as some others are, that well regulated militia clause was more expected to keep the state secure from external threats rather than internal despotism. While the English Bill of Rights of 1689 of which the Second Amendment drew its influence from, did explicitly secure the right to be free from forceful disarmament by the state, the Founding Father's intended the checks and balances of the Federal Republic to keep domestic tyranny at bay, not the arming of its citizens. Mob rule scared the sh**t out of them, they didn't want the masses deciding to burn the system down willy-nilly because of some perceived repression.

Once we attained an organized military, there was no longer a need for a well-regulated militia. I'm all in favor of people wanting to arm themselves, and I'm even willing to grant them their right to be paranoid of government repression. But this whole self-aggrandizing narrative of patriotic duty by excessive self-armament is bogus.

Consider for a moment the fact the Brits had a organized military, yet the Founding Fathers took up arms against it.  So, to say the 2nd Amendment only grants gun rights until the forming of a organized military would make the whole American Revolution hypocritical, would it not?

As the whisky rebellion proved, the fathers had very little patience of armed citizens rebelling. Hamilton would probably vote for a hyper Assault Weapons Ban if he was revived.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2016, 05:19:01 PM »

While I'm not quite as on board with this snatching assault weapons as some others are, that well regulated militia clause was more expected to keep the state secure from external threats rather than internal despotism. While the English Bill of Rights of 1689 of which the Second Amendment drew its influence from, did explicitly secure the right to be free from forceful disarmament by the state, the Founding Father's intended the checks and balances of the Federal Republic to keep domestic tyranny at bay, not the arming of its citizens. Mob rule scared the sh**t out of them, they didn't want the masses deciding to burn the system down willy-nilly because of some perceived repression.

Once we attained an organized military, there was no longer a need for a well-regulated militia. I'm all in favor of people wanting to arm themselves, and I'm even willing to grant them their right to be paranoid of government repression. But this whole self-aggrandizing narrative of patriotic duty by excessive self-armament is bogus.

Consider for a moment the fact the Brits had a organized military, yet the Founding Fathers took up arms against it.  So, to say the 2nd Amendment only grants gun rights until the forming of a organized military would make the whole American Revolution hypocritical, would it not?

As the whisky rebellion proved, the fathers had very little patience of armed citizens rebelling. Hamilton would probably vote for a hyper Assault Weapons Ban if he was revived.

Saying crazy Alex would support it does not help the case.
Logged
Taco Truck 🚚
Schadenfreude
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 958
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2016, 05:47:01 PM »

I do care. I care so much about the people hurt that I dislike it when anyone uses this as a reason to push for more or less gun control.

That's pretty good.  Can I use it?

I'm going to tell my girlfriend my ambivalence is actually me expressing to her I care.  I'll tell her that me taking a late afternoon snooze on the couch after downing a couple of beers on Valentines Day shows my love.  Making a big production out of the day and taking her out for an expensive meal would be disrespectful and inappropriate.
Logged
Taco Truck 🚚
Schadenfreude
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 958
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2016, 05:50:02 PM »


Well someone is definitely not pretending he cares.  Kind of refreshing in a sick sort of way.

No f-cks have been given.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2016, 05:58:56 PM »


Well someone is definitely not pretending he cares.  Kind of refreshing in a sick sort of way.

No f-cks have been given.
The 1996 Oldsmobile is pretty neat car but apparently I don't care about the people ran over it by one in Vegas.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2016, 06:27:59 PM »

Gun control might not be a gay rights issue, but if conservative Republicans stopped enabling hatred, things like this would be less likely to happen.
WTF is this nonsense?  Do you really think the bigot in Orlando gave two sh**ts what other bigots of a different faith think about gay dudes?

I don't like American Christian bigots anymore than you do, but to blame them for a non-Christian shooting up a gay bar is moronic.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,659
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2016, 08:57:02 PM »

AR-15s are pretty awesome guns. I've only gone shooting once (it's definitely not my thing), but it was easily my favorite of the dozen or so guns I tried. My dad owns one. If I were to buy a gun, which I probably will never do, it would probably be an AR-15.

It's now been used in the two previous ISIS attacks by lone wolves on US soil.

So guess what gun will be used for the next lone wolf attack?
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2016, 12:08:46 AM »

It's now been used in the two previous ISIS attacks by lone wolves on US soil.

Hey, both of those terrorists attacks were because people were radicalized over the internet. We should ban the internet while we're in such a proactive mood.
Logged
MK
Mike Keller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2016, 12:17:59 AM »


Well someone is definitely not pretending he cares.  Kind of refreshing in a sick sort of way.

No f-cks have been given.



Its fun to shoot at the range but can be expensive.  Actually thought about selling and getting a SkS and putting some $$ into it.   With the loony left and Hillary possibly trying to ban these I figured I'd hold on to it and watch the value go up due to it being a pre-ban AR (if that were to happen).  FYI.. if a ban takes place guns like mine would be most likely grandfathered in.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2016, 12:18:36 AM »

Yeah, if you're not going to let us politicize tragedy get out of the way!



(and stop doing the never helpful "This is how threads on <insert message board of your choice> always reacts", we get it, you think you're better than everybody else...you don't need to advertise it so much)

Amen.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2016, 12:23:59 AM »

My 81 year old Great Uncle has one though due to his Parkinsons he isn’t able to shoot it. Is he going to go out and kill people? Have you ever wondered that maybe, just maybe, some people like shooting. They like shooting at bottles hundreds of feet of way. It’s the same reason why 13 year old kids like blowing shit up with fire-works.

Plus the AR-15 is actually a popular hunting rifle; I’ve only been hunting a handful of times, and I’ve only actually managed to get a hit only once, so I’m not an expert on anything hunting related. But some of my friends, especially the real Florida crackers who grew up hunting and lived their whole lives in rural north Florida are very fond of the AR-15 for hunting. It's more popular than I suspected; hell, just a month ago I was sitting with a friend of mine who was showing me a video of helicopter based hog shooting with a gun that reminded me of something off a tank!

^ Extremely convincing argument for the value of keeping AR-15s legal.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,659
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2016, 01:09:12 AM »

It's now been used in the two previous ISIS attacks by lone wolves on US soil.

Hey, both of those terrorists attacks were because people were radicalized over the internet. We should ban the internet while we're in such a proactive mood.

Wrong.

The repressed gay gunman was radicalised by members at a local mosque and local friends and associates.

The FBI has found no online links to ISIS or radicalisation.

The have only found online links to gay meetup apps on his phone.

Once he was radicalised, he then turned his attention against homosexual men in his own community.

What a bizarre story.

I think people need to stop attacking other people after these events.

So many negative personal attacks on posts in the last two days.



Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2016, 01:13:21 AM »

...if the government really did want to f**k you over and f**k you over good, armed citizens are no match against trained soldiers and their armaments and vehicles.

But you're not understanding the nature of such a battle - it would not be a conflict on a open plain, rather it would be slow grind urban warfare involving the sniping of any occupying force.  In such a scenario, there are enough guns among the US populous to make occupation untenable.

Sounds like you've read Unintended Consequences.
Logged
MK
Mike Keller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2016, 01:26:39 AM »

...if the government really did want to f**k you over and f**k you over good, armed citizens are no match against trained soldiers and their armaments and vehicles.

But you're not understanding the nature of such a battle - it would not be a conflict on a open plain, rather it would be slow grind urban warfare involving the sniping of any occupying force.  In such a scenario, there are enough guns among the US populous to make occupation untenable.

Sounds like you've read Unintended Consequences.

Its more complex then that.  You have local police that also are citizens not to mention some soldiers would defend their families rather than some tyrannical government politician.  We most likely would be dealing with blackwater types and radical hard left anarchist.

Yes, they have fully auto weapons, but so do most local police. We would also take arms from the ones we kill in the process.  Capture their drones and reprogram them to work for us.   Its not as simple as you make it out to be. Urban warfare wont be easy.
Logged
dax00
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2016, 01:32:05 AM »
« Edited: June 14, 2016, 01:34:36 AM by Foul, and a miss - Ali Carter 4 »

This whole thread disgusts me.
I say ban bullets, disarm the police, and make the penalty for owning ammunition very heavy.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2016, 02:05:13 AM »

People should really understand other people's point of view, on the issue of gun control. The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2016, 03:16:41 AM »

The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

Stunning insight.

The eventual goal should be to repeal the 2nd, just as the 21st repealed the 18th, and join the rest of the civilized world.  But baby steps, obviously.
Logged
MK
Mike Keller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2016, 03:46:40 AM »

The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

Stunning insight.

The eventual goal should be to repeal the 2nd, just as the 21st repealed the 18th, and join the rest of the civilized world.  But baby steps, obviously.

And lets get rid of the 1st too.   I don't understand the left and their never ending quest to make America like the rest of Europe.  Go join those"civilzed" nations and their utopia free from guns.
Logged
Rules for me, but not for thee
Dabeav
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,785
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2016, 07:11:45 AM »

"Safe spaces" do not exist.  The world is a dangerous place.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2016, 07:13:30 AM »

The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.

Stunning insight.

The eventual goal should be to repeal the 2nd, just as the 21st repealed the 18th, and join the rest of the civilized world.  But baby steps, obviously.

And lets get rid of the 1st too.   I don't understand the left and their never ending quest to make America like the rest of Europe.  Go join those"civilzed" nations and their utopia free from guns.
too poor to move


<smirk>


and it wasn't even an AR15, come on gun control nuts, try and keep something (anything?) straight.  Maybe if it had a shoulder thing that went up?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.