Meanwhile in the LITERAL Death of America

[repoman]

https://www.fortmorgantimes.com/2021/03/23/boulder-shooting-victims/

 

[Shadowy Man]

This comic strip came out nearly a decade ago:

Patooka's cartoon pretty much says it all. "The occasional Horrific Civilian massacre is the price we pay".

I have no argument with that statement at all. Furthermore, I am in the camp who believes the price is well worth it even though I have never purchased a gun in my life. The price of freedom and liberty has never come easily. And keeping what little freedom and liberty is left of this country does not come easy either.

This is nothing more than a judgement call. It is the judgement of whether the costs are worth the rewards of freedom and liberty.

This is a false dichotomy because there is sensible gun control legislation that could be put into effect that likely will reduce some of the negative consequences while still maintaining the kinds of freedoms that law-abiding, responsible citizens want to enjoy.

If we were to employ those and it had absolutely no effect on mass shootings then I might agree with you. But in the absence of sensible policies that most citizens actually agree with but aren’t legislated we just won’t know.

 

[ZiprHead]

Critics Tell GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert What To Do With Her ‘Prayers’ After Boulder Shooting

 

[RVonse]

This comic strip came out nearly a decade ago:...

Patooka's cartoon pretty much says it all. "The occasional Horrific Civilian massacre is the price we pay".

I have no argument with that statement at all. Furthermore, I am in the camp who believes the price is well worth it even though I have never purchased a gun in my life. The price of freedom and liberty has never come easily. And keeping what little freedom and liberty is left of this country does not come easy either.

This is nothing more than a judgement call. It is the judgement of whether the costs are worth the rewards of freedom and liberty.

"Freedom and liberty." What do the words even mean? Certainly not the freedom to be an Asian working in a spa in Georgia. Nor even the freedom to sit peacefully in one's own apartment in Texas. And certainly not the freedom to speak freely in a saloon full of right-wing red-necks, most of who are probably toting guns.

No, the only ones who feel "freedom" due to their guns are the perverted gun lovers themselves. The have the FREEDOM to (and often do) shoot themselves in the foot. The have the FREEDOM to leave the gun out where their kid can play with it. FREEDOM!! Yay, Yay!

And what's with the Freedom AND Liberty? Care to explain the difference? My guess is that, ALL you have is the mistaken right-way view of FREEDOM and 1-word rhetorical appeals, so indulged in the hendiadys of using a word and its synonym for lack of any rational argument.

The question you need to answer is, is the risk of government tyranny more than the risk of another individual or vice versa? I view government is that bigger risk but is only my opinion or judgement call. IMO the probability that dying from a crazy shooter is smaller than an attack from my own government. Our government could turn on all of us and has become exceedingly corrupt and can not tell to truth anymore (as proven by Snowden and others). So the probability of either happening is small but I believe one is higher than the other.

But the point is that there is some probability of either occurrence so it is not an automatic assumption that less guns is necessarily better.

 

[RVonse]

[
This is a false dichotomy because there is sensible gun control legislation that could be put into effect that likely will reduce some of the negative consequences while still maintaining the kinds of freedoms that law-abiding, responsible citizens want to enjoy.

What kind of sensible gun control legislation do you mean? Less automatic weapons? If our government would happen to go amok I would want the good people to have automatic weapons. It is not so simple.

 

[prideandfall]

But the point is that there is some probability of either occurrence so it is not an automatic assumption that less guns is necessarily better.

gonna have to disagree with this based on the fact that countries with less guns have less gun violence than countries with guns.

as for the issue of which is the bigger threat:
this is purely anecdotal and i acknowledge that, but i've had lots of run-ins with the government in my life and never had any threat to my life or liberty because of it, and yet 4 months ago my neighbors was 'showing off' his gun to some random floozy he picked up at a bar and fired it by accident, shooting through his apartment wall and into my apartment, the bullet whizzing about 6 inches from my head and destroying my television.

so for me, guns are demonstrably a bigger threat to my existence than the government.

 

[prideandfall]

If our government would happen to go amok I would want the good people to have automatic weapons. It is not so simple.

and what exactly is it that you imagine an automatic weapon in the hands of a pudgy lower class dipshit would do against an apache helicopter and a crew of armored military special ops?

the notion that gun proliferation within a given population is a check against military oppression is so laughably pathetic it doesn't even warrant serious discussion.

 

[Swammerdami]

"Freedom and liberty." What do the words even mean? Certainly not the freedom to be an Asian working in a spa in Georgia. Nor even the freedom to sit peacefully in one's own apartment in Texas. And certainly not the freedom to speak freely in a saloon full of right-wing red-necks, most of whom are probably toting guns.

No, the only ones who feel "freedom" due to their guns are the perverted gun lovers themselves. The have the FREEDOM to (and often do) shoot themselves in the foot. The have the FREEDOM to leave the gun out where their kid can play with it. FREEDOM!! Yay, Yay!

And what's with the Freedom AND Liberty? Care to explain the difference? My guess is that, ALL you have is the mistaken right-wing confusion about FREEDOM and 1-word rhetorical appeals, so indulged in the hendiadys of using a word and its synonym for lack of any rational argument. [edited]

The question you need to answer is, is the risk of government tyranny more than the risk of another individual or vice versa? I view government is that bigger risk but is only my opinion or judgement call. IMO the probability that dying from a crazy shooter is smaller than an attack from my own government. Our government could turn on all of us and has become exceedingly corrupt and can not tell to truth anymore (as proven by Snowden and others). So the probability of either happening is small but I believe one is higher than the other.

But the point is that there is some probability of either occurrence so it is not an automatic assumption that less guns is necessarily better.

Oh my. I see I gave you too much credit.

What scenario do you envision? The tax collector comes to your door, so you shoot him and skedaddle into the wilderness? Wouldn't it have been easier just to pay your taxes?

Or is the gun just for self-defense in getting past any guards when you're planting bombs in a federal building in Oklahoma to send a message?

Or are you and like-minded individuals going to don warpaint like your forefathers did in 1773 and throw gasoline into the Harbor when gummint tries to tax it? Or use your guns to storm the Capitol when an election doesn't go your way?

In any case, are you one of those who think the "right to bear arms" includes rocket launchers, SAMs and perhaps tactical nukes? If you have enough voting citizens to hold off the Army without special military equipment, wouldn't that be enough to make a dent on Election Day? Oh, I forgot. The Election was stolen.

What makes this all especially laughable is that there's only one President evil enough to make citizens worry so much: your pal, the Orange Brat! (Or are you one who voted for the Libertarian, ha ha?)


The more I hear from gun nuts, the more i'm convinced that they really are nuts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Freedom and liberty." What do the words even mean? Certainly not the freedom to be an Asian working in a spa in Georgia. Nor even the freedom to sit peacefully in one's own apartment in Texas. And certainly not the freedom to speak freely in a saloon full of right-wing red-necks, most of who are probably toting guns.

No, the only ones who feel "freedom" due to their guns are the perverted gun lovers themselves. The have the FREEDOM to (and often do) shoot themselves in the foot. The have the FREEDOM to leave the gun out where their kid can play with it. FREEDOM!! Yay, Yay!

And what's with the Freedom AND Liberty? Care to explain the difference? My guess is that, ALL you have is the mistaken right-way view of FREEDOM and 1-word rhetorical appeals, so indulged in the hendiadys of using a word and its synonym for lack of any rational argument.

The question you need to answer is, is the risk of government tyranny more than the risk of another individual or vice versa? I view government is that bigger risk but is only my opinion or judgement call. IMO the probability that dying from a crazy shooter is smaller than an attack from my own government. Our government could turn on all of us and has become exceedingly corrupt and can not tell to truth anymore (as proven by Snowden and others). So the probability of either happening is small but I believe one is higher than the other.

But the point is that there is some probability of either occurrence so it is not an automatic assumption that less guns is necessarily better.

Currently, the number of mass shootings grossly towers over government that ran amok.

A government with a $600 to $800 billion a year budget military. So even if the government runs amok... those guns will be useless. Militants can be flattened by a drone from a hundred miles away, controlled by someone who is a thousand miles away from that, while the militants are polishing their weapons.

 

[TomC]

The question you need to answer is, is the risk of government tyranny more than the risk of another individual or vice versa?

This isn't the 18th century.
The way modern tyrants get and keep power is mostly fake news and voter suppression. No amount of personal weaponry will protect The People from a government tyranny, if they believe whatever they're told by sophisticated propagandists like the GOP/TeaParty.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Patooka's cartoon pretty much says it all. "The occasional Horrific Civilian massacre is the price we pay".

I think this is the best example I've seen in a long time of someone charging headlong inexorably to the point, then missing it completely

The question you need to answer is, is the risk of government tyranny more than the risk of another individual or vice versa?

Oh good, we're back to this asinine argument. Hate to break it to you, but your Armalite that can easily turn a cinema into a crime scene is going to accomplish jack fucking shit to a tyrannical government that has this:

Show

or this:

Show

or this:

Show

If your going to fight against a tyrannical government with your Walmart FN FAL knockoff, be sure to bring a bucket with no holes in it, so cleaning up what's left of you is easier.

And whilst we're on the topic of freedom, I live in a country with gun legislation infinitely more strict than yours. And yet at 18, I could go into a bar, drink a beer, call a cop a cunt and walk into a brothel and fuck a hooker - all all of which could get me arrested in your "land of the free". Along with that, our schools don't have metal detectors and you can headbutt a former leader and not get eviscerated by Secret Service. Try giving a Glasgow Kiss to Trump or Obama and see how long you live. Also in Australia, protesters aren't gassed for photo ops in front of churches.

Your idea of liberty and what makes a tyrannical government are fucking awful.

 

[TomC]

Also in Australia, protesters aren't gassed for photo ops in front of churches.

On orders of the President, or whatever is the Australian equivalent.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Also in Australia, protesters aren't gassed for photo ops in front of churches.

On orders of the President, or whatever is the Australian equivalent.
Tom

Officially, it's Queen Elizabeth II. Technically, it's the Governor-General. For all practical purposes however it's the Prime Minister.

 

[Patooka]

Maybe this comic strip is slightly less ambiguous:

 

[ZiprHead]

[
This is a false dichotomy because there is sensible gun control legislation that could be put into effect that likely will reduce some of the negative consequences while still maintaining the kinds of freedoms that law-abiding, responsible citizens want to enjoy.

What kind of sensible gun control legislation do you mean? Less automatic weapons? If our government would happen to go amok I would want the good people to have automatic weapons. It is not so simple.

This is quite the fantasy you've dreamed up. What about all the bad people that would have automatic weapons while the good ones are waiting for the government to "run amok"?

 

[repoman]

People are selfish so they don't care much about ghetto blacks and methed out whites killing each other.

What they do care about it is random rampage shootings even if the fatality numbers are much lower, because they have more of a risk to be killed in those situations.

 

[Swammerdami]

Something amusing about gun nuts is their mantra:
. . . "When inserections (or guns) are outlawed, only outlaws will get erect (or have 8-inch steel hard-ons)."
Yet without exception they brag that they will break the law and lie about their guns and refuse to give them up to Hillary when she comes knocking for their guns.

The reason this is amusing is that gun nuts rant about being "law-abiding" and that their guns are in the service of "law and order." They lack even the simple cognitive skill to realize that 'law-breaking' and 'law-abiding' are antonyms.

 

[Trausti]

Something amusing about gun nuts is their mantra:
. . . "When inserections (or guns) are outlawed, only outlaws will get erect (or have 8-inch steel hard-ons)."
Yet without exception they brag that they will break the law and lie about their guns and refuse to give them up to Hillary when she comes knocking for their guns.

The reason this is amusing is that gun nuts rant about being "law-abiding" and that their guns are in the service of "law and order." They lack even the simple cognitive skill to realize that 'law-breaking' and 'law-abiding' are antonyms.

The informants who turned in Anne Frank were following the law.

 

[Trausti]

People are selfish so they don't care much about ghetto blacks and methed out whites killing each other.

What they do care about it is random rampage shootings even if the fatality numbers are much lower, because they have more of a risk to be killed in those situations.

That’s how the media curates the news. It’s an important story only if the media decides it is.

 

[fromderinside]

News is man bites dog while mom has baby is not except to those who are involved with the baby having. No need for some media tool to make that determination.