>Naming ships after living people is creeping degeneracy.
I don't disagree but she's benched permanently.
A medical invalid is the least offensive use of the concept in recent years. Politically, it was a worthwhile thing too, a literal political assassination attempt is worth making a big deal out of.
>Technically yes, but it was socially motivated, not politically motivated.
It was a political murder attempt. I don't like the woman or her politics but Black personlike murders of people you disagree with over politics and then muttering something about social murder is bullshit
Democrats aren't against weapons in the hands of soldiers, they're just against them being in the hands of robbers and school students and think that reducing civilian access is the way to do that.
>they're just against them being in the hands of robbers
We're reaching unprecedented levels of bullshit with that one.
Now take your reddit moronation back to whatever safe space you crawled out of and fricking stay there
>support state enforcers having weapons but not civilians
So they're traitors who want free reign to oppress people? Not helping their case.
>you may just need to move somewhere that better matches how you want to live
How people want to live is "not having a chance of their children being murdered at school" or "being afraid to represent left wing politics because you might be murdered by a right-wing schizo radicalized on Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones".
If you don't have a good solution to the above, then society is probably going to slowly and eventually decide that freedom to go to school safely and freedom to engage in political discourse outweighs freedom to plink with ARs.
The constitution isn't set in stone, amendments can be made.
[...]
FWIW: nearly all OSHA rules exist because someone was killed that way. >Regulations are written in blood.
People SHOULD be scared to represent collectivist or authoritarian policies.
>People SHOULD be scared
So you don't want traitors oppressing the people but you want the people scared to wrong-think or say anything that you disagree with.
It seems like your idea of a perfect world is just one that you rule and choose who to oppress, I'm pretty sure nobody else wants to live there.
Your opinion on pretty much anything can be disregarded if you support a reign of terror on those you disagree with. Especially when the qualifying crime for being victimized in your world is advocating society-centric policies.
Doesn't matter who voted for them, politicians should hold office (if the government is even allowed to exist) on the understanding they'll be 'removed' immediately if they try to infringe upon individual rights.
[...]
[...]
You're just arguing that gun control shouldn't happen. You've got your reasons, that's cool but unless you have a solution to school shootings that works, gun control is going to happen.
Solve school shootings or you're going to get the solution you don't like.
Threatening to ape out over it isn't going to help and it is certainly not going to play out like you imagine.
As an Australia, I can say that you're being simple-minded. Guns don't cause school shootings. In the US before the 1960s, you could have a gun mailed to your home with absolutely no questions asked, and these mass public shootings were almost unheard of. There is far more gun control now, yet these shootings are more common. The biggest school massacre in US history (Bath school bombing) didn't involve guns. You have a mental health problem, and more broadly a problem with your health care system. You have entire generations of young men who have no direction in life, have been raised with no values or strong national identity, and then people act surprised when they fly off the handle.
You're just arguing that gun control won't solve school shootings. I think you're probably wrong but it's so hard to prove one way or the other that arguing about it is pointless.
In any case, it's irrelevant to what I said.
Whether successful or not, unless gun owners effectively advance a policy that solves school shootings, gun control will become inevitable. Even if it turns out not to achieve the same result.
If you want to keep gun rights, you need to find an effective policy to solve or massively reduce school shootings and you need to campaign on it to get it implemented.
>You're just arguing that gun control won't solve school shootings.
That's not what I said you dingus. Even if you could make every gun disintegrate spontaneously it wouldn't solve the core issue with your society. Guns don't make people homicidal maniacs. If psychos don't have guns, they'll use explosives (ala Bath school disaster or Timothy Mcveigh).
If you actually want to stop the mass murders perpetrated by juveniles, fix your society. Fix your health system, instill strong values and morals in your kids, and actually offer them support when they need it.
>You don't have to like it but it's consistent
remember where you are and save the apologetics for /misc/
>remember where you are
Gun control is about weapons.
If you can't talk about what you oppose without going into blind rages, lies and propaganda then you really can't effectively oppose it at all.
You're much worse than the opponents you hate, you effectively want to cancel me for not adopting a showing sufficient hate towards your enemy.
Reducing civilian access is inflaiming it becuase they're not reducing CRIMINAL ACCESS
You're deliberately misconstruing the word "civilian", this doesn't help.
Obviously less guns in civilian hands means less guns available to civilians who are criminals.
Your implying that civilians are criminals and to keep guns away from criminals we have to keep guns away from civilians instead of arming them MORE so they can defend themsleves against them
No, you're misunderstanding what I've written to make a strawman argument you can attack.
This is /misc/-tier debate and one reason why you'll never have an impact.
I argued that some civilians are criminals, which is undeniably true. You choose to misinterpret that saying that all civilians are criminals.
Either you're just very stupid, which I can't rule out, or you're dishonest.
Either way, all I'm doing is saying that you shouldn't misrepresent your opponents if you want to effectively campaign against them. You're intent on doing this though, to democrats and to anonymous posters both. You're a waste of time and electrons.
You are likely operating under the mistaken impression that there are only two types of people: "Good guys," and "bad guys."
There's a reason we don't just lock up the "bad guys" forever and then dismantle the criminal justice system because we got them all. Every "good guy," is really a "bad guy," given the correct circumstances.
So disarm the "good guys," and when the circumstances arise, they can't do as much damage as the bad guy.
That's presumption of guilt, which is antithetical to our justice system. Which is fine, you may just need to move somewhere that better matches how you want to live.
>That's presumption of guilt,
Tell that to OSHA, or the FCC, or ten thousand other regulatory agencies.
>This hasn't killed any of my workmen yet. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY!
1 year ago
Anonymous
I feel like that's not the same.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you may just need to move somewhere that better matches how you want to live
How people want to live is "not having a chance of their children being murdered at school" or "being afraid to represent left wing politics because you might be murdered by a right-wing schizo radicalized on Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones".
If you don't have a good solution to the above, then society is probably going to slowly and eventually decide that freedom to go to school safely and freedom to engage in political discourse outweighs freedom to plink with ARs.
The constitution isn't set in stone, amendments can be made.
[...]
FWIW: nearly all OSHA rules exist because someone was killed that way. >Regulations are written in blood.
>Negligence in the course of business is the same as a constitutionally protected right.
So yeah. This is why people say go somewhere else; you're not just mad at guns, you can't accept how the system works here on a fundamental level.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you're not just mad at guns
When did I say I was mad?
You're treating me as an enemy because I'm not expression your level of irrational hatred for your enemies. This is pretty nuts anon
Go ahead, post the meme. How many school children need to be shot?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>ESL
you're mad enough to mald and seethe about our politics so I'll just accept your concession and go lmao
1 year ago
Anonymous
>ESL >Cope >Seethe
I'm not that guy but why do you use the same insults over and over again? I get where both of you are coming from, but God damn. Get better material. This is the big, big problem with the 2A community. If you aren't hating democrats, you're wrong. I agree that every single gun law is an infringement. There just isn't a way around compromise right now. What we should be doing is working with these scared people and educate them why WE aren't the problem. Maybe then we could come up with a compromise that both sides can live with.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Thatgay was pretty obviously speaking generally anon. It's pretty obvious that gun control dicourse is very often emotionally motivated, there's no need to be defensive. Just seems supsicious honestly.
1 year ago
Anonymous
There’s no way you’re an American. I refuse to believe my fellow countryman would be so ignorantly moronic as to how our country and society operate.
>you may just need to move somewhere that better matches how you want to live
How people want to live is "not having a chance of their children being murdered at school" or "being afraid to represent left wing politics because you might be murdered by a right-wing schizo radicalized on Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones".
If you don't have a good solution to the above, then society is probably going to slowly and eventually decide that freedom to go to school safely and freedom to engage in political discourse outweighs freedom to plink with ARs.
The constitution isn't set in stone, amendments can be made.
https://i.imgur.com/CVnjrDg.jpg
>That's presumption of guilt,
Tell that to OSHA, or the FCC, or ten thousand other regulatory agencies.
>This hasn't killed any of my workmen yet. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY!
FWIW: nearly all OSHA rules exist because someone was killed that way. >Regulations are written in blood.
1 year ago
Anonymous
nta but from the outside in half of america is going that route while the other half is teetering towards increasingly christian theocratic towns and counties as certain states look the other way. please do not assume I have a preferred scenario
1 year ago
Anonymous
>How people want to live is "not having a chance of their children being murdered at school" or "being afraid to represent left wing politics because you might be murdered by a right-wing schizo radicalized on Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones".
Neither of these are that particularly common, not saying youre saying they are just wanted it on record >t. verification not required
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I get that. It doesn't really matter whether it's common or not though, it's about perception and what motivates people to vote.
When it comes to dead children, comparing it to crossing the road or diabetes isn't really going to cut it. When children die by what are seen to be preventable causes, the parents want shit to change and as we've seen with Alex Jones recently, they're sometimes prepared to dedicate the rest of their lives to it, see nearly everything in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person#United_States
If a better solution that turns out to actually work isn't found and implemented by gun owners, eventually there'll be enough weight on the gun control side to pass a 28th amendment. Arming Mrs Lindsey in English 2 probably isn't the solution that's gonna work either.
And it's got to come from gun owners because the gun lobby is only interested in selling guns and scares about gun seizure does that so they never want that danger to go away.
Plus we know all the problems with the NRA, if it even exists by the time that Russia collapses.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Leftist would prefer to destroy universal rights rather than stop alienating their chosen kulak class.
Many such cases.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Great one, that'll really convince the mothers that you've solved school shootings.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nobody listens to them when real things happen. See the BLM riots when all of the manufactured emotional narratives evaporated off of the left overnight as they came to understand what actually distrusting police means. This happens every single time, it's an idea toyed around by billionaires and wine moms that dies the moment it encounters real humans.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>that dies the moment it encounters real humans
See
Yeah, I get that. It doesn't really matter whether it's common or not though, it's about perception and what motivates people to vote.
When it comes to dead children, comparing it to crossing the road or diabetes isn't really going to cut it. When children die by what are seen to be preventable causes, the parents want shit to change and as we've seen with Alex Jones recently, they're sometimes prepared to dedicate the rest of their lives to it, see nearly everything in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person#United_States
If a better solution that turns out to actually work isn't found and implemented by gun owners, eventually there'll be enough weight on the gun control side to pass a 28th amendment. Arming Mrs Lindsey in English 2 probably isn't the solution that's gonna work either.
And it's got to come from gun owners because the gun lobby is only interested in selling guns and scares about gun seizure does that so they never want that danger to go away.
Plus we know all the problems with the NRA, if it even exists by the time that Russia collapses.
There's a list of laws, about half of which came from angry mothers.
Every high profile school shooting pushes the cause a bit, it's a matter of time unless you do something about it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>ramdom drunk driver laws are the same as overturning constitutional rights that have been consistently reenforced over the last 20 years up to and including the last governmental cycles.
Lmao no. Just saying 'muh million mommies shal rise' doesn't male it so.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It will eventually. These are people who have the rest of their lives to dedicate to a cause.
You're just someone that likes guns.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's a fantasy. It wafts away into nothing the moment anyone so much as breathes on it. It's not me you need to be worried about. It's all the ideological seperatists who armed up since 2020 and are NEVER giving their shit up. Every single failure of public order, police abuse, and high profile crime via urban decay, ushers us further along into the new paradigm where only irrelevant boomers actually trust centralized authority with monopoly of force.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>It's not me you need to be worried about
It probably is, you sound like an edge-lord in denial, bound up in extremist views, /misc/, and sensationalized cable news.
>It's all the ideological seperatists who armed up since 2020 and are NEVER giving their shit up
Actually not, they're not really the problem.
They'll keep their guns very quiet, not show them off to anti-social nephews so that they can be taken to school.
What some guy does quietly with a few trusted buddies in the woods on a Sunday morning or a hunting trip isn't the problem.
The guys you talk about aren't ever going to shoot up a school, they're going to lose their guns in boating accidents and have some new patches in the lawn that smell faintly of cosmoline before the heat dies down and they go back to slightly more discreet versions of their hobby. Well, most of them. The ones that would be a problem will fail to keep their mouths shut, boast on social media and discords and resist loudly and get gunned down by cops early on but even they aren't really the problem.
The problem is the edgy teenager with rage issues and they're not going to easily get their hands on illegal firearms so that's the problem solved, more or less. Some will but they're the outliers, most school shootings are done with retail purchased firearms.
Over time, there'll be attrition as some people hand in inherited guns and gradually the problem becomes smaller but the black market isn't what the mothers will be worried about.
This is going to happen because an increasing number of committed people want a solution and you have no alternative.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I has been multiple decades since your most basic premise has become even slightly more true. Gun control is an eternal moneypit for isolated elites seeking reactionary solutions to issues that the common man has less inclination to budge on than he has ever had before.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If you don't have solutions, you're not going to have a say in the solution.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Reread that. Violating intrinsic rights to assuage bourgiose delusions about mass violence is not a real solution.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>not a real solution
Maybe, maybe not.
It'll feel real enough to the people pushing it and if it passes, it's going to feel pretty real to you.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>support state enforcers having weapons but not civilians
So they're traitors who want free reign to oppress people? Not helping their case.
[...]
People SHOULD be scared to represent collectivist or authoritarian policies.
Not that anon. There are plenty of things that only have solutions which violate rights. For instance, we can solve world hunger for instance by killing off a sufficient segment of the population which consumes the most and produces the least food.
Can these things happen? Sure. Are they things that tilt the fabric of the social contract into despotism? Yes.
You're just arguing that gun control shouldn't happen. You've got your reasons, that's cool but unless you have a solution to school shootings that works, gun control is going to happen.
Solve school shootings or you're going to get the solution you don't like.
Threatening to ape out over it isn't going to help and it is certainly not going to play out like you imagine.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not that anon. There are plenty of things that only have solutions which violate rights. For instance, we can solve world hunger for instance by killing off a sufficient segment of the population which consumes the most and produces the least food.
Can these things happen? Sure. Are they things that tilt the fabric of the social contract into despotism? Yes.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>This is going to happen because an increasing number of committed people want a solution and you have no alternative.
Americans are advised to not give up their gun rights unless they want to end up like the kulaks. White Americans are being set up for a holodomor and the rest are scheduled to be enslaved. Given BLM I guess its considered tradconservative among blacks to be slaves. This wont be like your great great great grandpappys days of cotting picking, you will have a chip in your brain ensuring that you will obey silently without any uppity outbursts. Da ovaseeh will be a greasy guy with a remote control.
Its the same gang of foreign parasites running the show in America as it was in the early Soviet Union, and remember, there are no innocents in this kind of warfare, and the americans who worships them (literally millions do) or assists these foreigners in exchange for money (literally millions do) are even more worthy targets than them. Leave no one living from the ranks of traitors and alien parasites, neither man, woman or child. Its brutal, but necessary unless you want a repeat 20 years later when they have recovered from their first attempt. This is the grim lesson of history.
No, you're misunderstanding what I've written to make a strawman argument you can attack.
This is /misc/-tier debate and one reason why you'll never have an impact.
I argued that some civilians are criminals, which is undeniably true. You choose to misinterpret that saying that all civilians are criminals.
Either you're just very stupid, which I can't rule out, or you're dishonest.
Either way, all I'm doing is saying that you shouldn't misrepresent your opponents if you want to effectively campaign against them. You're intent on doing this though, to democrats and to anonymous posters both. You're a waste of time and electrons.
and I don't 100% agree with you.
I don't think the gun control position is based around all civilians being potential bad guys, I think it's based around not knowing which civilians are going to turn out bad and therefore, restricting access to all of them.
Which is an "unfree" position certainly but in the absence of a workable solution from the gun rights side, is what society is trending towards.
If we don't want to end up with gun control on everyone, we need a better answer to school shootings than "all of them"
I see this said occasionally by people like JD Vance but it's always these schizo fundamentalists and right-wing demagogues that have been caught out in lies and exaggeration many times.
There's never any actual witness accounts, charges, memoirs, police complaints...you know, actual evidence that usually exists when something is true.
Why haven't any of the so-called victims spoken up?
It just smells like a typical conservatard nothing-burger where they make random accusations and you're just supposed to believe them because of course people like this do things like that.
He was good friends with and seen often around Alan Ginsburg, an open NAMBLA member.
The scene of Harvey Milk was big time Michel Foucalt, another pedophile.
I mean its not a big leap. And naming a ship after him is a national embarrassment not unlike rainbow flags on public buildings and men in dresses in the Pentagon.
Its a national disgrace and bad for morale.
How are those recruitment numbers?
So I was right, there's nothing. There never is with you people. You can't tell the difference between prejudice and evidence.
It's why you get taken in so easily by the most obvious grifters, they play to your hate and fear and you swallow it up.
If knowing two pedophiles made you a pedophile, everyone in the GoP would be a pedophile.
She isn’t one of the first batch is she? Because those ended up being beta tests for the later hulls and now that the Navy seems have gotten what it wants from them they’re getting retired. Hate seeing that but I also understand why it happens.
This thread was always intended to be /misc/ bait, that's why they chose the Gabby to open the thread and not a general discussion about Independence class or literal combat ships in general.
It's nice that deck guns are being taken more seriously than slapping on the same old 5 inch and 25mm guns, but if it ain't Salem's Revenge, I don't really care.
clittoral combat shit more like
Naming ships after living people is creeping degeneracy.
>Naming ships after living people is creeping degeneracy.
I don't disagree but she's benched permanently.
A medical invalid is the least offensive use of the concept in recent years. Politically, it was a worthwhile thing too, a literal political assassination attempt is worth making a big deal out of.
>political assassination
Technically yes, but it was socially motivated, not politically motivated.
>Technically yes, but it was socially motivated, not politically motivated.
It was a political murder attempt. I don't like the woman or her politics but Black personlike murders of people you disagree with over politics and then muttering something about social murder is bullshit
IIRC the Arleigh Burke class and its lead ship USS Arleigh Burke were launched by the guy himself while he was still alive
>USS Zelenskyy
I don't know that I'd call her "alive".
It's flimsy, moronic, and crippled. Just like its namesake.
they named a weapon of war after a c**t who spent her entire career hating weapons?
unreal
Democrats aren't against weapons in the hands of soldiers, they're just against them being in the hands of robbers and school students and think that reducing civilian access is the way to do that.
You don't have to like it but it's consistent.
>You don't have to like it but it's consistent
remember where you are and save the apologetics for /misc/
>they're just against them being in the hands of robbers
We're reaching unprecedented levels of bullshit with that one.
Now take your reddit moronation back to whatever safe space you crawled out of and fricking stay there
Reducing civilian access is inflaiming it becuase they're not reducing CRIMINAL ACCESS
lmfao okay moron
sup NAFO
>support state enforcers having weapons but not civilians
So they're traitors who want free reign to oppress people? Not helping their case.
People SHOULD be scared to represent collectivist or authoritarian policies.
>People SHOULD be scared
So you don't want traitors oppressing the people but you want the people scared to wrong-think or say anything that you disagree with.
It seems like your idea of a perfect world is just one that you rule and choose who to oppress, I'm pretty sure nobody else wants to live there.
Your opinion on pretty much anything can be disregarded if you support a reign of terror on those you disagree with. Especially when the qualifying crime for being victimized in your world is advocating society-centric policies.
Conservatives literally think that it's OK to kill politicians that they didn't vote for.
Conservatives are always at heart arguing that they should have freedom and other people should have rules.
Doesn't matter who voted for them, politicians should hold office (if the government is even allowed to exist) on the understanding they'll be 'removed' immediately if they try to infringe upon individual rights.
As an Australia, I can say that you're being simple-minded. Guns don't cause school shootings. In the US before the 1960s, you could have a gun mailed to your home with absolutely no questions asked, and these mass public shootings were almost unheard of. There is far more gun control now, yet these shootings are more common. The biggest school massacre in US history (Bath school bombing) didn't involve guns. You have a mental health problem, and more broadly a problem with your health care system. You have entire generations of young men who have no direction in life, have been raised with no values or strong national identity, and then people act surprised when they fly off the handle.
You're just arguing that gun control won't solve school shootings. I think you're probably wrong but it's so hard to prove one way or the other that arguing about it is pointless.
In any case, it's irrelevant to what I said.
Whether successful or not, unless gun owners effectively advance a policy that solves school shootings, gun control will become inevitable. Even if it turns out not to achieve the same result.
If you want to keep gun rights, you need to find an effective policy to solve or massively reduce school shootings and you need to campaign on it to get it implemented.
>gun control will become inevitable
Only because the authoritarian lunatics who support gun control can advocate for everyone being stripped of their rights without consequences.
>You're just arguing that gun control won't solve school shootings.
That's not what I said you dingus. Even if you could make every gun disintegrate spontaneously it wouldn't solve the core issue with your society. Guns don't make people homicidal maniacs. If psychos don't have guns, they'll use explosives (ala Bath school disaster or Timothy Mcveigh).
If you actually want to stop the mass murders perpetrated by juveniles, fix your society. Fix your health system, instill strong values and morals in your kids, and actually offer them support when they need it.
>against them being in the hands of robbers
By restricting access to everyone by labelling them all criminals in case of possession.
USS Gabrielle Giffords is named after a c**t, but USNS Harvey Milk is named after a pedophile. Please redirect your hate.
>gays are groomers
gb2/pol/
>remember where you are
Gun control is about weapons.
If you can't talk about what you oppose without going into blind rages, lies and propaganda then you really can't effectively oppose it at all.
You're much worse than the opponents you hate, you effectively want to cancel me for not adopting a showing sufficient hate towards your enemy.
You're deliberately misconstruing the word "civilian", this doesn't help.
Obviously less guns in civilian hands means less guns available to civilians who are criminals.
Your implying that civilians are criminals and to keep guns away from criminals we have to keep guns away from civilians instead of arming them MORE so they can defend themsleves against them
No, you're misunderstanding what I've written to make a strawman argument you can attack.
This is /misc/-tier debate and one reason why you'll never have an impact.
I argued that some civilians are criminals, which is undeniably true. You choose to misinterpret that saying that all civilians are criminals.
Either you're just very stupid, which I can't rule out, or you're dishonest.
Either way, all I'm doing is saying that you shouldn't misrepresent your opponents if you want to effectively campaign against them. You're intent on doing this though, to democrats and to anonymous posters both. You're a waste of time and electrons.
You are likely operating under the mistaken impression that there are only two types of people: "Good guys," and "bad guys."
There's a reason we don't just lock up the "bad guys" forever and then dismantle the criminal justice system because we got them all. Every "good guy," is really a "bad guy," given the correct circumstances.
So disarm the "good guys," and when the circumstances arise, they can't do as much damage as the bad guy.
That's presumption of guilt, which is antithetical to our justice system. Which is fine, you may just need to move somewhere that better matches how you want to live.
>That's presumption of guilt,
Tell that to OSHA, or the FCC, or ten thousand other regulatory agencies.
>This hasn't killed any of my workmen yet. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY!
I feel like that's not the same.
>Negligence in the course of business is the same as a constitutionally protected right.
So yeah. This is why people say go somewhere else; you're not just mad at guns, you can't accept how the system works here on a fundamental level.
>you're not just mad at guns
When did I say I was mad?
You're treating me as an enemy because I'm not expression your level of irrational hatred for your enemies. This is pretty nuts anon
Go ahead, post the meme. How many school children need to be shot?
>ESL
you're mad enough to mald and seethe about our politics so I'll just accept your concession and go lmao
>ESL
>Cope
>Seethe
I'm not that guy but why do you use the same insults over and over again? I get where both of you are coming from, but God damn. Get better material. This is the big, big problem with the 2A community. If you aren't hating democrats, you're wrong. I agree that every single gun law is an infringement. There just isn't a way around compromise right now. What we should be doing is working with these scared people and educate them why WE aren't the problem. Maybe then we could come up with a compromise that both sides can live with.
Thatgay was pretty obviously speaking generally anon. It's pretty obvious that gun control dicourse is very often emotionally motivated, there's no need to be defensive. Just seems supsicious honestly.
There’s no way you’re an American. I refuse to believe my fellow countryman would be so ignorantly moronic as to how our country and society operate.
>you may just need to move somewhere that better matches how you want to live
How people want to live is "not having a chance of their children being murdered at school" or "being afraid to represent left wing politics because you might be murdered by a right-wing schizo radicalized on Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones".
If you don't have a good solution to the above, then society is probably going to slowly and eventually decide that freedom to go to school safely and freedom to engage in political discourse outweighs freedom to plink with ARs.
The constitution isn't set in stone, amendments can be made.
FWIW: nearly all OSHA rules exist because someone was killed that way.
>Regulations are written in blood.
nta but from the outside in half of america is going that route while the other half is teetering towards increasingly christian theocratic towns and counties as certain states look the other way. please do not assume I have a preferred scenario
>How people want to live is "not having a chance of their children being murdered at school" or "being afraid to represent left wing politics because you might be murdered by a right-wing schizo radicalized on Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones".
Neither of these are that particularly common, not saying youre saying they are just wanted it on record
>t. verification not required
Yeah, I get that. It doesn't really matter whether it's common or not though, it's about perception and what motivates people to vote.
When it comes to dead children, comparing it to crossing the road or diabetes isn't really going to cut it. When children die by what are seen to be preventable causes, the parents want shit to change and as we've seen with Alex Jones recently, they're sometimes prepared to dedicate the rest of their lives to it, see nearly everything in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person#United_States
If a better solution that turns out to actually work isn't found and implemented by gun owners, eventually there'll be enough weight on the gun control side to pass a 28th amendment. Arming Mrs Lindsey in English 2 probably isn't the solution that's gonna work either.
And it's got to come from gun owners because the gun lobby is only interested in selling guns and scares about gun seizure does that so they never want that danger to go away.
Plus we know all the problems with the NRA, if it even exists by the time that Russia collapses.
>Leftist would prefer to destroy universal rights rather than stop alienating their chosen kulak class.
Many such cases.
Great one, that'll really convince the mothers that you've solved school shootings.
Nobody listens to them when real things happen. See the BLM riots when all of the manufactured emotional narratives evaporated off of the left overnight as they came to understand what actually distrusting police means. This happens every single time, it's an idea toyed around by billionaires and wine moms that dies the moment it encounters real humans.
>that dies the moment it encounters real humans
See
There's a list of laws, about half of which came from angry mothers.
Every high profile school shooting pushes the cause a bit, it's a matter of time unless you do something about it.
>ramdom drunk driver laws are the same as overturning constitutional rights that have been consistently reenforced over the last 20 years up to and including the last governmental cycles.
Lmao no. Just saying 'muh million mommies shal rise' doesn't male it so.
It will eventually. These are people who have the rest of their lives to dedicate to a cause.
You're just someone that likes guns.
It's a fantasy. It wafts away into nothing the moment anyone so much as breathes on it. It's not me you need to be worried about. It's all the ideological seperatists who armed up since 2020 and are NEVER giving their shit up. Every single failure of public order, police abuse, and high profile crime via urban decay, ushers us further along into the new paradigm where only irrelevant boomers actually trust centralized authority with monopoly of force.
>It's not me you need to be worried about
It probably is, you sound like an edge-lord in denial, bound up in extremist views, /misc/, and sensationalized cable news.
>It's all the ideological seperatists who armed up since 2020 and are NEVER giving their shit up
Actually not, they're not really the problem.
They'll keep their guns very quiet, not show them off to anti-social nephews so that they can be taken to school.
What some guy does quietly with a few trusted buddies in the woods on a Sunday morning or a hunting trip isn't the problem.
The guys you talk about aren't ever going to shoot up a school, they're going to lose their guns in boating accidents and have some new patches in the lawn that smell faintly of cosmoline before the heat dies down and they go back to slightly more discreet versions of their hobby. Well, most of them. The ones that would be a problem will fail to keep their mouths shut, boast on social media and discords and resist loudly and get gunned down by cops early on but even they aren't really the problem.
The problem is the edgy teenager with rage issues and they're not going to easily get their hands on illegal firearms so that's the problem solved, more or less. Some will but they're the outliers, most school shootings are done with retail purchased firearms.
Over time, there'll be attrition as some people hand in inherited guns and gradually the problem becomes smaller but the black market isn't what the mothers will be worried about.
This is going to happen because an increasing number of committed people want a solution and you have no alternative.
I has been multiple decades since your most basic premise has become even slightly more true. Gun control is an eternal moneypit for isolated elites seeking reactionary solutions to issues that the common man has less inclination to budge on than he has ever had before.
If you don't have solutions, you're not going to have a say in the solution.
Reread that. Violating intrinsic rights to assuage bourgiose delusions about mass violence is not a real solution.
>not a real solution
Maybe, maybe not.
It'll feel real enough to the people pushing it and if it passes, it's going to feel pretty real to you.
You're just arguing that gun control shouldn't happen. You've got your reasons, that's cool but unless you have a solution to school shootings that works, gun control is going to happen.
Solve school shootings or you're going to get the solution you don't like.
Threatening to ape out over it isn't going to help and it is certainly not going to play out like you imagine.
Not that anon. There are plenty of things that only have solutions which violate rights. For instance, we can solve world hunger for instance by killing off a sufficient segment of the population which consumes the most and produces the least food.
Can these things happen? Sure. Are they things that tilt the fabric of the social contract into despotism? Yes.
>This is going to happen because an increasing number of committed people want a solution and you have no alternative.
Americans are advised to not give up their gun rights unless they want to end up like the kulaks. White Americans are being set up for a holodomor and the rest are scheduled to be enslaved. Given BLM I guess its considered tradconservative among blacks to be slaves. This wont be like your great great great grandpappys days of cotting picking, you will have a chip in your brain ensuring that you will obey silently without any uppity outbursts. Da ovaseeh will be a greasy guy with a remote control.
Its the same gang of foreign parasites running the show in America as it was in the early Soviet Union, and remember, there are no innocents in this kind of warfare, and the americans who worships them (literally millions do) or assists these foreigners in exchange for money (literally millions do) are even more worthy targets than them. Leave no one living from the ranks of traitors and alien parasites, neither man, woman or child. Its brutal, but necessary unless you want a repeat 20 years later when they have recovered from their first attempt. This is the grim lesson of history.
-> >>>/x/
I'm
and I don't 100% agree with you.
I don't think the gun control position is based around all civilians being potential bad guys, I think it's based around not knowing which civilians are going to turn out bad and therefore, restricting access to all of them.
Which is an "unfree" position certainly but in the absence of a workable solution from the gun rights side, is what society is trending towards.
If we don't want to end up with gun control on everyone, we need a better answer to school shootings than "all of them"
It has nothing to do with him being gay and everything to do with him raping underage boys.
I see this said occasionally by people like JD Vance but it's always these schizo fundamentalists and right-wing demagogues that have been caught out in lies and exaggeration many times.
There's never any actual witness accounts, charges, memoirs, police complaints...you know, actual evidence that usually exists when something is true.
Why haven't any of the so-called victims spoken up?
It just smells like a typical conservatard nothing-burger where they make random accusations and you're just supposed to believe them because of course people like this do things like that.
He was good friends with and seen often around Alan Ginsburg, an open NAMBLA member.
The scene of Harvey Milk was big time Michel Foucalt, another pedophile.
I mean its not a big leap. And naming a ship after him is a national embarrassment not unlike rainbow flags on public buildings and men in dresses in the Pentagon.
Its a national disgrace and bad for morale.
How are those recruitment numbers?
So I was right, there's nothing. There never is with you people. You can't tell the difference between prejudice and evidence.
It's why you get taken in so easily by the most obvious grifters, they play to your hate and fear and you swallow it up.
If knowing two pedophiles made you a pedophile, everyone in the GoP would be a pedophile.
He literally raped minors after drugging them kek
To this day I still don't understand why we need corvettes and more importantly, why couldn't call them as such.
She isn’t one of the first batch is she? Because those ended up being beta tests for the later hulls and now that the Navy seems have gotten what it wants from them they’re getting retired. Hate seeing that but I also understand why it happens.
She's a later commission.
>it's another "some dorks are having political arguments and completely derailed the thread" episode
This thread was always intended to be /misc/ bait, that's why they chose the Gabby to open the thread and not a general discussion about Independence class or literal combat ships in general.
Excellent choice of naval artillery
It's nice that deck guns are being taken more seriously than slapping on the same old 5 inch and 25mm guns, but if it ain't Salem's Revenge, I don't really care.
Build double ended missile cruisers on San Antonio hulls with ~300 VLS cells and two autoloading 8-inchers. Fricking cowards.
They are unironically some of the most well armed ships in the fleet.
The shells are surprisingly small
Why don't they name them after founding fathers and just rotate as ships are retired? wtf did Giffords do besides being a roastie c**t?
she can take a hit and survive, but she'll still continue to be useless.
Besides the politics and the boondoggle with its gun, it's fricking hideous. It's embarassing
Shot to the head
and you're to blame
you give ships
a bad name.
Powered by George Soros