Board 8 > Topic about antifa

(+) Yeah! (+)

Here's how we fix the deep-seated US culture of gun violence:
- Disarm cops
- Reserve-only military
- Only declared wars (foreign AND domestic) allow govt use of guns
- Generous buy back of civilian guns
- Registry (private) of all remaining guns

These are big asks from the government but it's the only way for them to genuinely prove that they are committed to reducing the culture of gun violence, and not just using the opportunity to further limit civilian rights. These would all be nominally popular policies among voters too, the main challenge is getting it through the anti-voter congress, which applies to all ideas.

Cops are still the biggest source of gun violence in the US, but we cannot forget the incredible amount of foreign violence our military creates as well. It's all part of the same system and the same culture and it all has to be fixed before we stop our shootings. You can't make comparisons to Canada or UK or Japan without focusing on this as well.

Helping with mental health and rejecting white supremacy and tracking those 100-round magazines and such are good things that could help in the short term, but they have to be part of a real plan.
---

agree
---

Looks good to me.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Here's how we fix the deep-seated US culture of gun violence:
- Disarm cops
- Reserve-only military
- Only declared wars (foreign AND domestic) allow govt use of guns
- Generous buy back of civilian guns
- Registry (private) of all remaining guns

Shaduln posted...

Looks good to me.

again, fine with me but I'd say 80% of the US voting populace would freak out at the prospect of disarming police officers

Realistically, there has to be some portion of an active military for multiple reasons, but I could support this.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

- Generous buy back of civilian guns

omw to buy a fuckton of guns for when this happens
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Realistically, there has to be some portion of an active military for multiple reasons, but I could support this.

Why
---

colliding posted...

80% of the US voting populace would freak out at the prospect of disarming police officers

You think? Lots of countries do it, and in this case the civilians (including off duty cops) would be able to have their own guns anyways.

It just means the cops don't have authority to use guns without a declaration of war. If congress wants to declare war on Detroit or something then they can do it and sent the SWAT gunners in.
---

For example this just ran into on reddit
https://www.inverse.com/article/58332-police-use-of-force-homicides-study
---

foolm0r0n posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Realistically, there has to be some portion of an active military for multiple reasons, but I could support this.

Why

Training/readiness
---

I agree with what you outlined and I'm curious.

Do you include any restrictions on type of firearms allowed to the public or the sale itself, or is the registry the only requirement? Also what is your ideal penalty or enforcement (if any) for owning an unregistered gun?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

- Disarm cops
- Reserve-only military
- Only declared wars (foreign AND domestic) allow govt use of guns

subversive propaganda only meant to weaken the united states in the global theater. I hate the state as much as the next person, probably moreso, but this is a really bad long term plan. united states is one of the few places in the world where the citizens have fully secured their own rights, by their own power.

there are way too many people who would be interested in coming in and changing that. they're already hard at work right now. one of the few actual uses of the federal government is their ability to deter foreign invaders.

and before someone tries dropping some anti-vaxxer tier logic on me. 'why isn't anyone currently invading us right now then????' because we have guns right now.

foolm0r0n posted...

- Generous buy back of civilian guns

this is a dumb waste of tax money but so is most everything else. you could try, but I doubt it would accomplish much.

foolm0r0n posted...

- Registry (private) of all remaining guns

it's not the government's business but funny enough almost everything I said above just applies anyway. it's a dumb waste of tax money, first of all. I guess the unarmed police officers will be going door to door to politely inquire about "illegal" unregistered guns? this is literally the kind of fan fiction that conservative message boards already jerk off to, they already have their "I conveniently lost all of my guns in a boating accident" stories ready. I wouldn't agree to this solution in the first place but it would be hilariously ineffective, especially with a disarmed police and military.

and lastly before we get anymore anti-vaxxer logic -- 'if private civilian owned firearms are so important to protecting our rights how come I never see anyone having to use them for that???' because we already have the guns. if you take them away, the equation changes.

also this observation is dumb to begin with because they were important and we did have to use them. it was in a year around, I dunno, 1776 or something. you might remember a big event that occurred around that time.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Training/readiness

That's part of the reserves. They can have guns in the training camps but when it's over then they go home until a war is declared. Maybe call them in for war exercises with other countries and such.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I hate the state as much as the next person, probably moreso

lol you can't say this and then spout the most propagandist idea ever created in the US, that there are tons of invaders trying to infiltrate us. I get that you're playing a character right now but it's a bit too ridiculous to seriously engage with. There's not risk of invasion at all, even 9/11 was something different entriely.

But your point about securing out freedom is good, for the wrong reasons. We are not unique in securing ourselves as individuals, it happens all over the world, but our economic strength does make us super secure comparetively. It's not about the guns at all. It's about our free trade and industry and innovation that makes us immune to attack. We're irreplaceable in that sense.

The genius of keynesianism and the military industrial complex is tying the military to our economy through the first dollar and social security. Our military is dependent on the economy, not vice versa, and it is tightly coupled at this point.

But a future US without military is far more viable and secure than a future (or current) US with big military and weak economy.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I guess the unarmed police officers will be going door to door to politely inquire about "illegal" unregistered guns?

Basically yeah

The fact is, even without guns, cops have the unique authority of the force of law. Guns don't give them that power, law and society give them that power. So a populace with lots of personal gun collections can still very much be organized by an unarmed police force, if the government has societal support. This is why you need the voluntary buy back and still allow all kinds of private gun ownership. It allows a strong cooperation between civilians and government without infringing on any rights.
---

How are we going to maintain our global hegemony? I care more about that than a civilian murder rate that has been sharply declining for 30 years.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

you can't say this

yes I can. as much as you like to act like an expert on things you have no way of being certain about, it's definitely not your purview to claim what ideas are or aren't in my head. you're not the gatekeeper for what I'm allowed to say I hate.

I make practical decisions based on evidence and observations of the world. that's realism. I'm not your typical blind board 8 idealist who states "this is how the world SHOULD BE" and bases all of my behavior on some arbitrary idea of fairness.

just because I can accept the fact that I live in a system that I hate doesn't mean that I don't hate it.

foolm0r0n posted...

the most propagandist idea ever created in the US, that there are tons of invaders trying to infiltrate us.

um, what? are you just in denial or something? this is happening all over the world between basically every country in existence. if you think there is NO other world power that is trying to subvert or infiltrate the US then I don't even know what to say. we're doing it to dozens of countries the world over and at the very least china and russia are very interested in meddling with our affairs.

right now we have a strong military. the idea of direct interference is very unappealing. your plan is to disarm our military for... some reason, you're not making it entirely clear, especially with your most recent post. and then.... I don't know. suddenly the idea of using force to manipulate the US becomes more appealing.

a weaker military = increased chances of other nations using force to manipulate us.

if you can't see that you're just flat out wrong.

foolm0r0n posted...

I get that you're playing a character right now but it's a bit too ridiculous to seriously engage with.

I have no idea what makes you say this. I have a pretty well established history of defending gun ownership and personal freedoms of US citizens, largely because I happen to be a citizen of the US.

hell, you're the one who just failed to respond to almost any of the points I made (except for one).

instead you accused me of "playing a role," but then went on a long rant about how... I don't know... disarming the military is good for the economy? which has nothing to do with your original point that supposedly disarming the military will somehow solve the "culture of gun violence." something you failed to even establish that it exists.

honestly I respect your hustle. this topic is pretty hilarious. you got a bunch of far left gun grabbers to somehow agree to letting the population keep a massive personal gun collection almost immediately after a mass shooting -- largely by typing a bunch of stuff too smart for them to understand or engage with. they literally just started nodding their heads and going "uh yeah this is a good idea" despite not understanding what you were even saying, because, well, none of them wanted to be the person to admit they didn't understand.

I guess the problem here is that you're mistaking me for a libertarian or something. you think if you completely switch your message to an economic one, and throw in some libertarian buzz words, that I'll agree with you as well because you "sound smart."

insulting me and then changing the subject does nothing to answer my original criticisms:

there is no clearly defined purpose for any of the suggestions that you made, and they include largely ineffective measures that would show little success at even accomplishing what they set out to do.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Basically yeah

The fact is, even without guns, cops have the unique authority of the force of law. Guns don't give them that power, law and society give them that power. So a populace with lots of personal gun collections can still very much be organized by an unarmed police force, if the government has societal support. This is why you need the voluntary buy back and still allow all kinds of private gun ownership. It allows a strong cooperation between civilians and government without infringing on any rights.

okay so... basically just reiterating what I already stated above.

1. voluntary buy back is not going to accomplish much of anything. it's a waste of time and money. you're basically just advocating that the government give away a bunch of free money to gun enthusiasts who know how to game the system.

2. when the police show up to investigate "illegal" unregistered guns, the people are not going to turn them over.

great. you've just wasted a bunch of time and money accomplishing nothing.

and in the process you put a bunch of people into a government database, essentially giving up people's personal information, for essentially no reason. why? what is the end goal of doing all this?

can you provide me one example of how putting a bunch of people into a database is going to "solve the problem of gun violence"?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

How are we going to maintain our global hegemony?

The military parts of my plan massively strengthen our economy and defense systems and thus our national security as a whole. It's the deadliest fallacy that spreading ourselves thin across 150 countries somehow improves our strength. The Saudis don't do that and look at their global influence.

Basically, the question you asked is good, but it should be aimed at the status quoers who are eroding everything that keeps us safe.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

yes I can

Let me clarify cuz I forgot who I was talking to. Your statements are contradictory and thus not realism at all since reality is not contradictory. The "invasion" rhetoric is strong state propaganda so they can't be wrong and also right about that.

MariaTaylor posted...

if you think there is NO other world power that is trying to subvert or infiltrate the US then I don't even know what to say

Similarly, it's contradictory to say that we're defending ourselves from infiltration due to guns, but we're also currently being infiltrated. Clearly all our guns aren't stopping things too well.

And that makes sense. Because China and Russia are attacking us economically, digitally, culturally. That is where we are massively deficient, precisely because of our insanely messed up military system which is dragging our whole economy down.

I'm obviously not saying no one wants to attack us. I'm saying it's absurd that they want to attack us physically on our mainland. China and Russia will never set foot in America. They are destroying us comfortably from afar, and my plan greatly improves on that. You're agreeing with me here pretty much.

MariaTaylor posted...

can you provide me one example of how putting a bunch of people into a database is going to "solve the problem of gun violence"?

I'm just going by examples of other buy backs such as Australia, which I don't know too much about. This part can easily be switched out to another gun-reduction strategy that works better. Seems like the market works quite well in these cases though.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

something you failed to even establish that it exists.

That said if you disagree with the entire premise of the topic then there's no point discussing. There's plenty of ways to easily convince people of that.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Let me clarify cuz I forgot who I was talking to. Your statements are contradictory and thus not realism at all since reality is not contradictory. The "invasion" rhetoric is strong state propaganda so they can't be wrong and also right about that.

I believe that one of the few uses of the federal government is a deterrent against outside forces.

I also believe that the federal government is a largely useless institution, and I hate that they hold so much power over our lives in exchange for providing relatively few services -- and they do a piss poor job at a lot of those.

there's nothing contradictory about this at all. my statements are not contradictory. they're only contradictory if you believe that you know, 100% what is going on in my head at such an extreme level of arrogance that you literally do not even consider my own opinion of my beliefs to be valid. which is actually accurate based on my understanding of you, so, I guess this line of discussion won't really go anywhere.

foolm0r0n posted...

Similarly, it's contradictory to say that we're defending ourselves from infiltration due to guns, but we're also currently being infiltrated

first that's not what I said, second, no, it's not a contradiction. people are ATTEMPTING to infiltrate us and affect our country in various ways. the presence of a strong military and the presence of an armed population are two factors which help defend ourselves against these outside forces.

foolm0r0n posted...

I'm obviously not saying no one wants to attack us. I'm saying it's absurd that they want to attack us physically on our mainland.

yes. BECAUSE WE HAVE GUNS.

this is what i mean when I say anti-vaxxer tier logic.

you are currently enjoying the benefits of a society that protects you against foreign infiltration, but your brain is literally failing to understand that the lack of negative symptoms is being caused by the deterrent itself and so you're claiming that the deterrent doesn't work.

you are using the same tier of logic as saying there's no need for vaccinations because your child "won't get sick anyway"

foolm0r0n posted...

China and Russia will never set foot in America. They are destroying us comfortably from afar, and my plan greatly improves on that. You're agreeing with me here pretty much.

sort of. but only in the most broad sense.

yes, I agree that other countries are currently competing against us in those ways.

but I'm also know they would resort to threats of force or the direct use of violence if this ever became a viable strategy. because this is how history has always worked, and always will work. when you have something that other people want, they are going to take it from you.

foolm0r0n posted...

I'm just going by examples of other buy backs such as Australia, which I don't know too much about.

clearly not, because it was an absolute joke that did not work.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

This part can easily be switched out to another gun-reduction strategy that works better. Seems like the market works quite well in these cases though.

but why? why do you want to reduce the number of guns? that's the part that no one can ever really explain.

the only thing this accomplishes is weakening the country that you currently enjoy the benefits of living in. I literally do not get it. I really don't. it is seriously virus tier behavior, like, your only role is to help weaken the organism that you live inside of, without realizing the consequences it will have against your own life. or maybe you are doing it intentionally and this entire argument is in bad faith. I don't know.

foolm0r0n posted...

The military parts of my plan massively strengthen our economy and defense systems and thus our national security as a whole. It's the deadliest fallacy that spreading ourselves thin across 150 countries somehow improves our strength.

I mean if you want to talk about reducing our global presence, yeah, I think this is a great idea. we need to stop wasting resources policing the rest of the world. the US has already built way too much pointless shit all over the world in places where it doesn't need to be, and they've been up to some serious nonsense for like 15+ years accomplishing approximately nothing at great cost (money, LIVES, etc.)

foolm0r0n posted...

That said if you disagree with the entire premise of the topic then there's no point discussing. There's plenty of ways to easily convince people of that.

just because you can easily convince people of something doesn't mean it's true. it just means you're good at rhetoric. I think you have seriously gone down a path, way too far, where you are good at convincing people of things -- so good that you can do so even when you're wrong. the problem is that this has led you to believe you're right even when you're not.

it's funny that you mention the "premise" of this topic because it's not to solve the gun violence issue.

the purpose of this topic is that you want to reduce the number of guns owned by the united states military. this is a subject you've discussed in the past, I specifically remember you making another topic about the same thing.

see, because we're on board 8, you chose to appeal to the board 8 sensibilities -- you framed your idea in a way that appeals to board 8. we can solve the gun violence problem by reducing the amount of guns owned by the US military.

problem is, this explanation makes no sense to me, because it's not actually something that logically connects. so when I called you out, what did you do? you changed the argument. now it's an economic argument, now it's about the global politics of the united states. these are subjects where you feel it's better to engage me -- you think that if you frame the discussion as a way to make the US more economically viable, I will agree to your plan of reducing the amount of guns owned by the US Military.

see, it comes across like you don't actually care about the gun violence issue, or the economics issue, you're just saying whatever you need to say to try and get the listener to agree with your proposed plan. the issue is that false rhetoric and reality can't coexist.

if you promise people that you'll solve the gun violence issue by reducing the guns owned by the US military, and then you reduce the amount of guns owned by the US military, and the amount of gun violence doesn't change -- what then? that's the issue with this topic.
---

"gun grabbers" is such a dumb term
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"gun grabbers" is such a dumb term

I mean, I just typed 15,000+ characters worth of text

if your main issue is thinking that one phrase I used in a context that doesn't even relate to my main point was "a dumb term" then I feel pretty good.
---

Pretty sure nobody wants to attack us because we spend more money on our military than the next 13 countries combined. ANd we have Nukes. And Drones. But no, I'm sure it's the untrained obese citizens who scare them. Not the military and economic power our country holds.

I doubt they're really worried about citizens with guns. Nobody wants to invade the UK either. Yet, they don't have nearly the guns we do.
---

^ good example of one of the users who is just not smart enough to follow the discussion
---

You said, and I quote:

the presence of an armed population are two factors which help defend ourselves against these outside forces.

Foreign countries aren't afraid of an armed population. Nobody looks at the US and thinks "You know, I'd totally invade that country if only they didn't have that pesky second amendment rights!" It's not even a contributing factor, and pretending like it is, is ridiculous.

If anything, a country wanting to invade us would just have to point us at each other and start a civil war. It'd be startlingly easy. Especially with all the guns we have.
---

I wrote 15,000+ characters worth of text

you pulled one line and tried to "GOTCHA!" it

but your logic isn't even correct

this is what I mean when I say "not smart enough."

an armed local population can demonstrably cause SERIOUS problems for conventional armies. we've seen this in viet nam, iraq, and afghanistan. you're just objectively wrong, it's not even a debate or a discussion.

just a typical internet expert who thinks his baseless conjecture is more likely than proven history. something about invaders using an epic code geass strategy of tricking americans to shoot at each other.
---

I feel like all we need is one good shove to start shooting at each other at this point. That's probably a bit pessimistic but I don't think it would take lelouch either

---

we'll be so busy eating cheesburgers we won't even have time to react when a geass-rigged epic mudslide rips through the area and destroys all of our guns
---

MariaTaylor posted...

an armed local population can demonstrably cause SERIOUS problems for conventional armies. we've seen this in viet nam, iraq, and afghanistan. you're just objectively wrong, it's not even a debate or a discussion.

Okay, let's look at your examples here, Mr. Expert.

What weapons did the Viet Cong have? They had rocket launchers, they had AK-47's, and they had submachine guns. Were these weapons they just personally owned or were they armed by North Vietnam and Russia? How did they get their weapons? Did they go out and purchase them personally? And let's not forget that many of them had years of training.

Same question for Iraq and Afghanistan. Where'd they get their weapons? Iran? Pakistan? Were they part of any militias? Did they have any training from say Hezbollah?

I think you're the one with a fantasy here. Some cowboy fantasy of taking down the enemy in a hail of bullets and being a hero Call of Duty Style.

And with as politically divided as we are today, I don't think it'd take too much to spark a civil war. Especially with a President who defines half of the country as either 'the enemy' or 'not real americans'
---

Ashethan posted...

What weapons did the Viet Cong have? They had rocket launchers, they had AK-47's, and they had submachine guns. Were these weapons they just personally owned or were they armed by North Vietnam and Russia? How did they get their weapons? Did they go out and purchase them personally? And let's not forget that many of them had years of training.

Same question for Iraq and Afghanistan. Where'd they get their weapons? Iran? Pakistan? Were they part of any militias? Did they have any training from say Hezbollah?

plenty of american firearm owners do train with their weapons regularly, and in the event of a land invasion of the US they would have plenty of access to advanced weaponry similar to and exceeding what you have mentioned above.

Ashethan posted...

I think you're the one with a fantasy here. Some cowboy fantasy of taking down the enemy in a hail of bullets and being a hero Call of Duty Style.

not at all. I consider myself a "soft pacifist" and I would only ever commit an act of violence in the interest of protecting my own personal safety or freedom, and it's certainly not something I look forward to.

Ashethan posted...

And with as politically divided as we are today, I don't think it'd take too much to spark a civil war. Especially with a President who defines half of the country as either 'the enemy' or 'not real americans'

if it were going to happen it probably would have already. but hey you're free to speculate on whatever you want. I'm sure in the event that a civil war does not happen you will definitely be out there publicly admitting how wrong you were.
---

anyway, what we're discussing now actually has very little to do with either of the two main points I was making. it's straight up just a case of you nitpicking one tiny facet of a very comprehensive discussion that you are quite literally incapable of engaging with on any intellectual level.

I guess it's quick and effortless to refute every dumb statement you make but it is a little annoying because you're very effectively derailing what was an interesting discussion between two people with half a brain or more.
---