Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Emily Lake]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

 

[Emily Lake]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

Did I ask them?

Seriously, have you forgotten how to have a conversation completely? I ask you if you would like X, and your response is "Those other people don't". In what world does that make sense?

The "real world".

Trump signed off on banning just bump stocks after the Vegas massacre. It was appealed and SCOTUS nixed the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not apologizing for being pragmatic.

You can be pragmatic and still actually give your own view and your own opinion when you're asked for it, you know.

 

[Emily Lake]

You don't seem to appreciate why the NRA exists. The NRA aren't there to protect gun rights, but rather to increase gun sales. You are suggesting reducing sales. The NRA will be against it. And that is all you really need to end any type of reform. You are talking like this hasn't be done or suggested before.

You aren't saying anything new here.

I know why the NRA exists. Unlike you, I'm not inclined to nihilism. If you think the objective is worthwhile, then it's incumbent on you to keep trying to find a strategy that will get you there. Just because one strategy doesn't work doesn't mean you throw in the towel and give up.

"I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You don't seem to appreciate why the NRA exists. The NRA aren't there to protect gun rights, but rather to increase gun sales. You are suggesting reducing sales. The NRA will be against it. And that is all you really need to end any type of reform. You are talking like this hasn't be done or suggested before.

You aren't saying anything new here.

I know why the NRA exists. Unlike you, I'm not inclined to nihilism.

"I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways arguments that won't work."

FIFY.

 

[Bomb#20]

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

Did I ask them?

Seriously, have you forgotten how to have a conversation completely? I ask you if you would like X, and your response is "Those other people don't". In what world does that make sense?

The "real world".

Trump signed off on banning just bump stocks after the Vegas massacre. It was appealed and SCOTUS nixed the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not apologizing for being pragmatic.

The SCOTUS didn't nix any ban on bump stocks. The appellate court noticed that bump stocks were not in point of fact banned, because in the "real world" it takes more than Trump's signoff to ban Americans from doing whatever we please, and the SCOTUS noticed the appellate court was right. If Trump wants to ban belly scratching he can tell some executive branch agency to issue a regulation prohibiting it, but the rest of us get to go right on scratching our bellies until Congress backs him up. Pragmatically, you don't want everyone to have to obey Trump's orders, do you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

Did I ask them?

Seriously, have you forgotten how to have a conversation completely? I ask you if you would like X, and your response is "Those other people don't". In what world does that make sense?

The "real world".

Trump signed off on banning just bump stocks after the Vegas massacre. It was appealed and SCOTUS nixed the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not apologizing for being pragmatic.

The SCOTUS didn't nix any ban on bump stocks. The appellate court noticed that bump stocks were not in point of fact banned, because in the "real world" it takes more than Trump's signoff to ban Americans from doing whatever we please, and the SCOTUS noticed the appellate court was right. If Trump wants to ban belly scratching he can tell some executive branch agency to issue a regulation prohibiting it, but the rest of us get to go right on scratching our bellies until Congress backs him up. Pragmatically, you don't want everyone to have to obey Trump's orders, do you?

Not exactly certain the disagreement here. I guess you feel the need to make a "point".

 

[Jarhyn]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

And plenty of people walk the bad parts of town in a red dress and nothing bad happens to them. And to be clear, it wouldn't be "your fault" either way, but rather the rapist's fault.

Most bad decisions don't end up having bad results, and many actions that would be criminally charged end up being swept under the rug.

If bad decisions has universally bad results nobody would make those decisions for long or often.

Congratulations that YOU didn't get hurt when someone raped you, but I don't think that justifies rape apologia.

At least now we know the quiet part out loud, that you endorse child rape openly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You don't seem to appreciate why the NRA exists. The NRA aren't there to protect gun rights, but rather to increase gun sales. You are suggesting reducing sales. The NRA will be against it. And that is all you really need to end any type of reform. You are talking like this hasn't be done or suggested before.

You aren't saying anything new here.

I know why the NRA exists. Unlike you, I'm not inclined to nihilism. If you think the objective is worthwhile, then it's incumbent on you to keep trying to find a strategy that will get you there. Just because one strategy doesn't work doesn't mean you throw in the towel and give up.

"I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

We aren't talking about developing the blue LED light here. This isn't about finding some technical process breakthrough that finally makes it possible.

A very strong majority support limiting cartridge sizes. So it isn't like we need to convince people. Yet, can't even get a bill through committee. I'm curious, what your non-nihilist plan is for getting a bill passed for limiting gun cartridge capacity is when well over 60% of Americans already would like to do as such and a bill has no shot in hell of getting to a floor vote.

 

[Millrat]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

And plenty of people walk the bad parts of town in a red dress and nothing bad happens to them. And to be clear, it wouldn't be "your fault" either way, but rather the rapist's fault.

Most bad decisions don't end up having bad results, and many actions that would be criminally charged end up being swept under the rug.

If bad decisions has universally bad results nobody would make those decisions for long or often.

Congratulations that YOU didn't get hurt when someone raped you, but I don't think that justifies rape apologia.

At least now we know the quiet part out loud, that you endorse child rape openly.

That’s way offside.

 

[Jarhyn]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

And plenty of people walk the bad parts of town in a red dress and nothing bad happens to them. And to be clear, it wouldn't be "your fault" either way, but rather the rapist's fault.

Most bad decisions don't end up having bad results, and many actions that would be criminally charged end up being swept under the rug.

If bad decisions has universally bad results nobody would make those decisions for long or often.

Congratulations that YOU didn't get hurt when someone raped you, but I don't think that justifies rape apologia.

At least now we know the quiet part out loud, that you endorse child rape openly.

That’s way offside.

Emily has been pretending for decades that trans folks have been indoctrinating kids while endorsing shit like this and being very silent about child beauty pageants.

Every actual thing that would reduce child rape and possibly prepare 16 year olds for relationships with 18 year olds, she has objected to over time.

And now she's spouting apologia endorsing 16 year olds with 19 year olds like there's any comparison between the two, and you are supporting her.

Bad decisions are bad decisions even if people accidentally fail to be harmed by those decisions, and the fact is that Emily has done more than enough to cement this view of her as a "concerned" person.

Not to mention that this Very Fine Person endorsing sex between 16 year olds and 19 year olds unironically thinks that that same 16 year old being trusted to make decisions which could get her pregnant and end her career before she even starts considering college (and that IS her position given that she also is hard-line anti-abortion) is somehow simultaneously incapable of (checks notes) making ANY decision about deferring puberty.

So a 16 year old is apparently old enough to get pregnant and ruin their career prospects, maybe old enough to brandish a gun at protestors and shoot people... But not old enough to take some pills and delay puberty by 2 years.

 

[Millrat]

Emily has been pretending for decades that trans folks have been indoctrinating kids while endorsing shit like this and being very silent about child beauty pageants.

Every actual thing that would reduce child rape and possibly prepare 16 year olds for relationships with 18 year olds, she has objected to over time.

And now she's spouting apologia endorsing 16 year olds with 19 year olds like there's any comparison between the two, and you are supporting her.

I can’t comment on decades of posting history you might share.

Me pointing out a disgusting smear does not equal supporting that person or their views.

That said, the difference between a 16 yr old and a 19 yr old could be as little as 732 days. Context matters.

 

[Toni]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

No, because capacity limits are much harder to enforce - you cannot tell by looking at the weapon whether there is a capacity limit on the magazine.

The US is not ready for real gun regulation. Too many gun fetishists and their dupes to get anything realistic done, so this is all academic. If I was in charge, I start with a ban on the sale of new semi-automatic weapons along with speed loaders for revolvers in the USA for non-military purposes, along with a buy back program for existing semi-automatic weapons. See how that works for 20 to 30 years, then assess and go from there.

I might start with a buy-back or trade of firearms designed for a higher-than-threshold magazine, as well as for magazine extenders etc. Start with that. Start by directly addressing the thing you claim to be concerned by.

I'm not even sure it would need 20 years. Especially if the government works with manufacturers to develop lower-capacity pistols that can be leveraged in trade. Hell, make them available in customizable colors and finishes

You don't seem to appreciate why the NRA exists. The NRA aren't there to protect gun rights, but rather to increase gun sales. You are suggesting reducing sales. The NRA will be against it. And that is all you really need to end any type of reform. You are talking like this hasn't be done or suggested before.

You aren't saying anything new here.

The NRA also ( currently) exists to further Putin’s agenda.

 

[Jarhyn]

Emily has been pretending for decades that trans folks have been indoctrinating kids while endorsing shit like this and being very silent about child beauty pageants.

Every actual thing that would reduce child rape and possibly prepare 16 year olds for relationships with 18 year olds, she has objected to over time.

And now she's spouting apologia endorsing 16 year olds with 19 year olds like there's any comparison between the two, and you are supporting her.

I can’t comment on decades of posting history you might share.

Me pointing out a disgusting smear does not equal supporting that person or their views.

That said, the difference between a 16 yr old and a 19 yr old could be as little as 732 days. Context matters.

...732 very long days full of experience with peers at critical times following critical educational periods and a period of increased travel privileges. And let's be clear, we're talking about a more practical gap of about 1000.

Context does matter and that context matters. Including that decade of history, though.

It's neither disgusting nor a smear, either way, though: "I was 16 and dated a 19 year old and nothing happened to me" is not an argument to allow it, it's an admission of idiocy and of having taken horrible risks and having been LUCKY nothing "horrific" happened, assuming she didn't get knocked up and have her future prospects ruined because she would have become a teen mother.

Never mind that, again, we have been discussing her opposition to abortion and the power of kids to make their own choices at 16 here in this thread...

It strikes me that she's be stumping for statutory rapists to get a pass (because she took that risk) and for kids to be armed in crowds and shoot people, but yet again, actually doing anything to mitigate risks of harm (making birth control available, supporting family planning, banning child trafficking pageants or passing/enforcing gun control laws) and she's all opposed!

She acts like a feminist, but the only time she ever brings up rape is when she thinks that being armed with a penis makes someone "too probably a rapist" (not even balls, mind you) to use a ladies restroom, but how then can she justify that being armed with a fucking RIFLE doesn't make you too "probably a shooter" to be at a protest? At least you can remove the rifle and get it back later.

Yes. Context matters. I'm sorry that a decade in, you aren't aware of the context that Emily Lake has more ideology in common with the Nationalist Socialist Party of 1930's Germany or perhaps with Serena Joy?

 

[Millrat]

And let's be clear, we're talking about a more practical gap of about 1000.

Strictly speaking, we’re talking about arbitrarily defined stages of maturity. In my experience, girls are generally more mature than boys of the same age.

It's neither disgusting nor a smear, either way, though: "I was 16 and dated a 19 year old and nothing happened to me" is not an argument to allow it, it's an admission of idiocy and of having taken horrible risks and having been LUCKY nothing "horrific" happened, assuming she didn't get knocked up and have her future prospects ruined because she would have become a teen mother.

It disgusted me.

I read the anecdote not so much as an argument to allow it; but to demonstrate that it’s rather common and not necessarily always perilous.

I disagree with Emily’s view on trans persons, but wouldn’t suggest that some inconsistencies in her views constitute an endorsement of child sexual assault.

 

[Jarhyn]

I disagree with Emily’s view on trans persons, but wouldn’t suggest that some inconsistencies in her views constitute an endorsement of child sexual assault

Except she clearly endorsed the actions that lead to it happening!

It disgusted me.

You know what disgusts me? Wild hypocrisy disgusts me.

That she holds her wild hypocrisy behind the most innocent seeming language she can construct merely makes the hypocrisy more disgusting. It takes some deep amount of effort to apologize for sexual relationships between 19 year olds and 16 year olds, and to pretend it's not a big deal.

we’re talking about arbitrarily defined stages of maturity.

No, we aren't. We are talking about peer group experiences, which happen over time and are not active social concerns until those specific ages due to fairly fixed cultural factors: kids are exposed to dating and dances and highschool relationships around the age of 15-16.

Are we really going to pretend that ANY of the 19 year olds we knew when we were kids were knowledgeable enough about themselves to understand relationships well enough to not hurt someone with 15-20% less life experience than them, and arguably the "most important" segment of that life experience missing?

We are talking about PREGNANCY RISKS for someone not even old enough to be trusted with a car on a highway FFS.

 

[Bomb#20]

To any imbeciles who might be present: "date" does not equal "copulate with". Make a note of it.
[/Captain Obvious]

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh, and while we're at it, "favors Roe-v-Wade" does not equal "hard-line anti-abortion".
[/Captain Obvious]

 

[Bomb#20]

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

Did I ask them?

Seriously, have you forgotten how to have a conversation completely? I ask you if you would like X, and your response is "Those other people don't". In what world does that make sense?

The "real world".

Trump signed off on banning just bump stocks after the Vegas massacre. It was appealed and SCOTUS nixed the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not apologizing for being pragmatic.

The SCOTUS didn't nix any ban on bump stocks. The appellate court noticed that bump stocks were not in point of fact banned, because in the "real world" it takes more than Trump's signoff to ban Americans from doing whatever we please, and the SCOTUS noticed the appellate court was right. If Trump wants to ban belly scratching he can tell some executive branch agency to issue a regulation prohibiting it, but the rest of us get to go right on scratching our bellies until Congress backs him up. Pragmatically, you don't want everyone to have to obey Trump's orders, do you?

Not exactly certain the disagreement here. I guess you feel the need to make a "point".

My point is that you were making it sound like Emily was being unrealistic in proposing moderate common-sense restrictions, because the SCOTUS won't go along with them. Sure it will. You want bump stocks banned, take it up with Congress, or with your state legislature. They're already illegal in my state and the SCOTUS hasn't nixed that.

 

[Toni]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

It does not make you any kind of freak. I’m glad if it turned out well for you.

I even get it: I remember very well what boys in high school were like —made fresher by raising sons of my own and seeing it through different lenses.

Sometimes it works out well, whether the relationship lasts or does not. Just like any other relationship. But the age difference can create a power difference that does not work out well for the younger person.

 

[Politesse]

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

Huh. Apparently me dating a 19 year old when I was 16 makes me some kind of freak.

No, just the victim of a groomer who correctly sensed vulnerability and took what he wanted while it was fresh. There are many like him, I meet them every day. They are the scum of our society, and they have done nothing to earn your support.

It's obvious Jarhyn doesn't think you're sick because you are the victim of abuse. He thinks it's sick to use past victimhood as an excuse to look the other way while other women are harmed, and I agree. A lot of people have hurt me. I don't love that. Did it kill me? Not yet. But I'll be damned if I'll be the one who helps them find their next victims.