Trump Regime thread.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That is one ignorant ass mofo right there. lol

[seanbrock 1,684]

How do you go about banning guns? Just like you can bootleg liquor and beer and wine you can make guns if you're a machinist. Guns that don't have serial numbers and can't he tracked. I mean, I guess with how much we spy on people in this country we could probably bust most of the illegal gun manufacturers. We've seen what happens when drugs and alcohol are banned. People find ways to get high and I think they'd find ways to get guns.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Also, I missed your claim at the top of your post, Favre, that I was minimizing other people dying. That is absolutely not what I was saying at all.

 

You replied back against my query about gun control with "but they'll just run us over with trucks" implying that we should be just as worried about that, which is absurd. Far more people die to firearms than by being run over with a truck.

 

I'm not minimizing people's deaths by pointing out far more people get killed by guns than by attacks with trucks, so it would make more sense to to try to stop the former from happening first and you trying to interpret what I was saying to mean that is completely- and it seems to me intentionally- missing the point.

How do you go about banning guns? Just like you can bootleg liquor and beer and wine you can make guns if you're a machinist. Guns that don't have serial numbers and can't he tracked. I mean, I guess with how much we spy on people in this country we could probably bust most of the illegal gun manufacturers. We've seen what happens when drugs and alcohol are banned. People find ways to get high and I think they'd find ways to get guns.

 

Gun control =/ banning guns, sean. That's not what this conversation is about, I think. I don't think anyone in here is arguing for the complete ban of all guns.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thanatos

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Thanatos is fucking getting it DONE in this thread right now.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

That is one ignorant ass mofo right there. lol

Then why call police lol? That dude is a straight dumbass. Talk about not needing to sniff the glue. I don't feel like my life is worth testing THEIR bullshit.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Omerta

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Then why call police lol? That dude is a straight dumbass. Talk about not needing to sniff the glue. I don't feel like my life is worth testing THEIR bullshit.

Yeah and the quote mkes it seem like the person using the gun offensively and the one using it defensively are equal and that simply isnt true. Ill side with the defensive minded gun owner everytimd. If the person carrying out a shooting spree gets shot and dies .... Im not crying about it.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Olenna4Ever

[Milla4Prez63 678]

I don't think guns need to be banned and I don't have an educated enough opinion on gun laws to talk on that. All I know is, giving guns to school teachers is a bad, bad idea. Maybe they should start hiring more officers or start training security for schools, create more jobs and help kids stay safer. But I don't like the idea of a unsupervised teacher who isn't trained to use a weapon having one in a classroom of 30 children.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Dude, I know teachers, and I know dumb fucking kids. You puts more guns in schools, and more guns will be used in schools. This is a straight fucking fact.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Dude, I know teachers, and I know dumb fucking kids. You puts more guns in schools, and more guns will be used in schools. This is a straight fucking fact.

 

I don't think you know nearly as much as you think you do. Taking guns away or enforcing stricter laws doesn't stop bad guys with guns. It's not like they walk up to a school, see the signs posted about being a gun free zone and then turn around. As Milla suggested, having unafraid, actually trained well security people could definitely help as well... But that's still more guns in school...

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

I don't think you know nearly as much as you think you do. Taking guns away or enforcing stricter laws doesn't stop bad guys with guns. It's not like they walk up to a school, see the signs posted about being a gun free zone and then turn around. As Milla suggested, having unafraid, actually trained well security people could definitely help as well... But that's still more guns in school...

 

First off, armed cops in high schools isn't new. Damn near every school in the country has at least 1 now a days. You're the same age as me I believe, did you have a cop in your school? We got one my Junior year and to her credit we have had zero gun shot fatalities since she was hired.

 

I need to hear a better idea than one we already have, personally. I think things that could help are smaller class sizes. Maybe training teachers how to work with children who have been bullied. Maybe more mentorship programs and maybe new ones for not only victims of bullying but for bullies too.

 

I think just being a latch key kid fucks with people too. Kids need somebody who will give them the time of day. More sports, maybe have other options for nerdy kids. idk man

Edited February 26, 2018 by seanbrock

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

First off, armed cops in high schools isn't new. Damn near every school in the country has at least 1 now a days. You're the same age as me I believe, did you have a cop in your school? We got one my Junior year and to her credit we have had zero gun shot fatalities since she was hired.

 

I need to hear a better idea than one we already have, personally. I think things that could help are smaller class sizes. Maybe training teachers how to work with children who have been bullied. Maybe more mentorship programs and maybe new ones for not only victims of bullying but for bullies too.

 

I think just being a latch key kid fucks with people too. Kids need somebody who will give them the time of day. More sports, maybe have other options for nerdy kids. idk man

Yes and no to us having cops at school. We did have one on call who would visit the campus like once a week just to check in and if anything went down they would get a call but they were always on patrol elsewhere so it isnt like they were right there in case something happened or constantly around. It was that way everywhere around here.

 

And I realize it isnt a brand new concept nor is it a guarantee of safety. But I like the idea of having these trained professionals on hand.

 

Just like a lot of issues in the political spectrum people get really close to it and use emotion and their moral compass to dictate policies. They stake themselves on the moral high ground and say something should happen just because . And if an idea is porpoises they dont like they fall back on I know schools, I know kids . Yeah wel last I checked most of us have been kids and most of us went to school. It sounds like similar logic to I have black or gay friends when talking about sex or race.

 

And as Ive mentioned in this very thread... Ive moved off some of my stricter gun stances. Ive grown and adapted in that way. Now, that also didnt mean Im just going to agree with everything the leftists throw out there just because .

 

And again as Ive mentioned I know this isnt a one step process. We have to hit this from multiple angles to make real progress. I just really dont want all these politicians to pass some gun laws and then move on thinking theyve stopped every future school shooting.

 

This needs to be an ongoing effort.

[OSUViking 505]

I have to say that I agree with Ngata that a lot of people are responding too emotionally. I'll also add that I distinguish between a reaction (immediate) and response (more nuanced, measured).

 

Society cannot be run by emotions. If that was the case, it would be a shit show. I would imagine many of those who align with Jordan Peterson's thinking would agree with this. These are teenagers, yes, but I do not think that excuses the general lack of maturity across many age groups in this country. Teenagers are young, yes, but they are really not that far off from having massive amounts of responsibility. Letting emotions get the best of you is immature, plain and simple, and it's not how decisions should be made. Emotions are beneficial for interactions within our social groups (which are tiny compared to nation-states of 300+ million people) and with raising children (so that they can interact with social groups they form later on in healthy ways). When it comes to making decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people, emotions need to be considered but sidelined for rational discussion. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the emotional displays (the tweet in this thread, what others have mentioned about a kid standing on people's graves) are unproductive if we want a reasonable solution.

 

Edit: Clarification on why I think more and more teenagers lack emotional maturity. I get that the teenage years are full of emotional experiences, hormones, and circumstances totally out of someone's control. That being said, they are supposed to be learning years. That is when an individual is supposed to start developing skills to handle these emotions so that when they truly are totally responsible for everything in their life, they can handle that. So, general teenage angst and emotionality is not what I am criticizing here. It is the lack of dedication to learning from life and using the excuse of "but I'm young and want to have fun" to justify it.

 

That being said, they will get their way. People are so easily swayed by emotions nowadays. People will look at these kids and say "they went through tragedy, that means they are informed enough to understand how these decisions affect hundreds of millions of people". Given that their displays are this emotional and reactive, I doubt that is the case, but to be clear I don't think intelligence and poorly regulated emotions are mutually exclusive.

 

On top of people being swayed, the NRA is sinking the Republicans from what it looks like. That they had a spokesperson say those things about mental health at the CNN Town Hall (or maybe it was another program) was unfortunate, because a lot of people are going to hear that and automatically justify their pro-gun views. It seems like young people are being mobilized in droves by the current actions of the GOP and their lobbyists. This is both somewhat encouraging because I do not want another Trump/Pence/mainstream GOP administration, but also concerning because of the aforementioned issues. I lean towards it being a good thing because I still have faith that most people my age (let's go with 16-24) are capable of rational dialogue without ethos as their main content.

Edited February 26, 2018 by OSUViking

[RazorStar 4,025]

I dunno it feels like you're just saying well it obviously won't work because America is different, so why bother even trying? Shouldn't you at least have evidence that it doesn't work first before giving up entirely? You can always repeal and walk back your laws, if the whole obamacare debacle is anything to go by.

 

People are fucking lazy my man, the only real reason school shootings are so prevalent in america is because it's too easy to get firearms. If I can pickpocket my teacher in elementary school, having teachers carry guns is just like saying let's go have more shootings. You might say "but then there will be school stabbings" to which I say you can stop a guy with a knife with your barehands, and the wounds you get are far less likely to be lethal. Sure people will always find ways to kill each other, but that's why you make it hard as possible for them to do so. That's why we regulate shit like vehicles, because it's so easy to kill with those.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think people going after these specific teens for emotionally responding to this situation are fucking twats, tbh.

 

You can talk all you want about how they should respond to this. You let me know if you can respond to something with sheer logic and no emotion after having 17 of your friends and teachers shot dead while you're running for your life. Tends to color one's view of things.

 

Not saying we should take everything they say as the gospel truth, but dear lord, cut them a bit of slack. Don't make policy based on emotion, sure, but let them vent and listen to them. No need to go after them personally, as has apparently become the right's MO recently.

 

 

Yes and no to us having cops at school. We did have one on call who would visit the campus like once a week just to check in and if anything went down they would get a call but they were always on patrol elsewhere so it isnt like they were right there in case something happened or constantly around. It was that way everywhere around here.

 

And I realize it isnt a brand new concept nor is it a guarantee of safety. But I like the idea of having these trained professionals on hand.

 

Just like a lot of issues in the political spectrum people get really close to it and use emotion and their moral compass to dictate policies. They stake themselves on the moral high ground and say something should happen just because . And if an idea is porpoises they dont like they fall back on I know schools, I know kids . Yeah wel last I checked most of us have been kids and most of us went to school. It sounds like similar logic to I have black or gay friends when talking about sex or race.

 

And as Ive mentioned in this very thread... Ive moved off some of my stricter gun stances. Ive grown and adapted in that way. Now, that also didnt mean Im just going to agree with everything the leftists throw out there just because .

 

And again as Ive mentioned I know this isnt a one step process. We have to hit this from multiple angles to make real progress. I just really dont want all these politicians to pass some gun laws and then move on thinking theyve stopped every future school shooting.

 

This needs to be an ongoing effort.

 

I don't necessarily mind more armed security that is trained the usage of guns, but I don't think it's going to stop the shootings. I mean all the person has to do is open fire in the classrooms while the guard is on patrol elsewhere and he'll kill quite a few people before he's stopped. But sure, we can try that. Probably would be a good idea to also try gun control, since its worked in many other countries. Just saying.

 

But not teachers. That's a horrible idea and I stand by that.

 

Again, the idea that gun free zones lead to more massacres is unproven and the 98% figure was made up by Lott and the CPRC to push his pro-NRA agenda. And like I said earlier, the school is the only place where you're guaranteed to have a large gathering of children and shooters that do it for the shock value would still target schools.

 

The idea that they wouldn't go into a non-gun-free zone to do it implies they still care about living. I don't really think that's the case the vast majority of the time, do you? Seems to me to believe you're going to go in there and shoot the place up and then get out and get away with it is extremely unlikely.

 

Also, gun control does in fact stop bad guns with guns. Not 100% no, but that's never going to be the case and is a poor reason for not doing so. The good guy with a gun is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun is a myth, as proven over and over again by studies. Gun control is what works in the long run in other countries, not arming everyone so we're all in some sort of mutual destruction pact.

Edited February 26, 2018 by RazorStar

[OSUViking 505]

I think people going after these specific teens for emotionally responding to this situation are fucking twats, tbh.

 

You can talk all you want about how they should respond to this. You let me know if you can respond to something with sheer logic and no emotion after having 17 of your friends and teachers shot dead while you're running for your life. Tends to color one's view of things.

 

Not saying we should take everything they say as the gospel truth, but dear lord, cut them a bit of slack. Don't make policy based on emotion, sure, but let them vent and listen to them. No need to go after them personally, as has apparently become the right's MO recently.

 

 

My opinion of myself is generally pretty toxic so we agree with each other here.

 

 

Can someone link me some sort of credible sources on this student protesting on the victims' graves? I have found absolutely nothing about it. If that actually happened, I don't think that's ever justifiable.

 

I have no problem admitting I'm being an insensitive ass about this. I don't know how I would react, frankly I imagine I would be panicked and would probably have some serious work to do in order to recover from it. I like to think that I wouldn't use my circumstances to get people to think a certain way. These are not productive ways of expressing emotions. Some teenagers - humans in general, in fact - express their feelings in horribly toxic ways, and I think that the tweet and this grave incident (if it even happened, still not sold) were toxic.

 

The thought has crossed my mind while I've written this response that manipulative and/or toxic encounters are frequent in politics and political discussions. I think this is a valid point to bring up. I would still say that the people engaging in those actions are being toxic, regardless of whether they are emotionally charged following a traumatic event or if they are trying to sell their soul to a new lobbyist. I'd be much more inclined to call the latter a piece of shit than the former, but I don't agree with either of their actions or their motives.

Edited February 26, 2018 by OSUViking

[Thanatos 2,847]

I wasn't really talking about you, more the general vibe from Republicans.

 

I don't think Ngata literally meant he was on their graves, but rather that he was using their deaths to further a cause.

[OSUViking 505]

 

I don't think Ngata literally meant he was on their graves, but rather that he was using their deaths to further a cause.

Misinterpretation and ensuing overreaction on my end. Do you have information on what event he was mentioning (or maybe it was a metaphor applied across several circumstances... Now I am thinking too much).

[seanbrock 1,684]

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/02/lawyers-for-the-dnc-argue-that-primary-rigging-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

 

So it was the first amendment right of the DNC as a corporation to fraudulently fix their primary and not only that but they have no fiduciary responsibility to those who donated to Bernie Sanders or any other candidate? I may never vote for a Democrat again in my life unless some serious fucking changes occur. It breaks my heart to see Bernie beating the Russia drum. I'm still glad Hillary lost. Fuck her and fuck the DNC.

[OSUViking 505]

Lol. When will the Supreme Court realize that organizations and corporations are not people?

 

Fucking hell. There is like no way to justify that court case without making it obvious someone wants money in politics.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Misinterpretation and ensuing overreaction on my end. Do you have information on what event he was mentioning (or maybe it was a metaphor applied across several circumstances... Now I am thinking too much).

 

I think he was referring to David Hogg's interview on that day where he defends the security guard who didn't go in.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You absolutely cannot legally tell parties they have some of fiduciary responsibility because then any promise made by any candidate before taking office that they did not fulfill would also be actionable.

 

It does not make this any less despicable, mind you.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

I don't necessarily mind more armed security that is trained the usage of guns, but I don't think it's going to stop the shootings. I mean all the person has to do is open fire in the classrooms while the guard is on patrol elsewhere and he'll kill quite a few people before he's stopped. But sure, we can try that. Probably would be a good idea to also try gun control, since its worked in many other countries. Just saying.

 

But not teachers. That's a horrible idea and I stand by that.

 

Again, the idea that gun free zones lead to more massacres is unproven and the 98% figure was made up by Lott and the CPRC to push his pro-NRA agenda. And like I said earlier, the school is the only place where you're guaranteed to have a large gathering of children and shooters that do it for the shock value would still target schools.

 

The idea that they wouldn't go into a non-gun-free zone to do it implies they still care about living. I don't really think that's the case the vast majority of the time, do you? Seems to me to believe you're going to go in there and shoot the place up and then get out and get away with it is extremely unlikely.

 

Also, gun control does in fact stop bad guns with guns. Not 100% no, but that's never going to be the case and is a poor reason for not doing so. The good guy with a gun is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun is a myth, as proven over and over again by studies. Gun control is what works in the long run in other countries, not arming everyone so we're all in some sort of mutual destruction pact.

 

I don't think it's crazy at all to think they would choose a gun free zone over one that that allows them. Even if their will to live has diminished... even if they have come to the conclusion that their life will end with this act -- they still want to pull off the act. The thought of being stopped prematurely would 100% deter them (or most, anyway).

 

As I mentioned previously, it's similar to home burglaries. If you have signs up saying you have cameras or dogs -- your home is statistically less likely to be burglarized. That isn't random or coincidence. I mean.. just logically it makes sense to me. Granted, that doesn't mean it's correct.. but again to me.. it makes sense.

 

I am not a " do nothing about guns " advocate. So if you say SOME extra laws will help the issue I am all for it. As I have said here though and will continue to echo is that it isn't the only solution we should be moving toward. If you (general sense) want to pass gun laws... we pass gun laws... then you stop caring about this... that's where I think you are wrong about gun control.

 

Also and separately from my response to you Thanatos. Previously in this thread or one of these threads when we were discussing racial issues and barriers, I brought up statistics about the lack of present fathers and how it leads to poorer education, increase in crimes, etc etc... Guess what a lot of these school / mass shooters have in common? Lack of strong present fathers. Doesn't mean it's the only reason.. But I don't think that is a coincidence either.

 

The family unit needs a lot of work.

[seanbrock 1,684]

You absolutely cannot legally tell parties they have some of fiduciary responsibility because then any promise made by any candidate before taking office that they did not fulfill would also be actionable.

 

It does not make this any less despicable, mind you.

When you donate money expecting that your candidate has a chance to win when in reality they don't that is called fraud and they absolutely can be held accountable for that. You can't prove it was fraud that a candidate didn't try to fulfill promises. This has been proven. Their whole argument was that they didn't have to run a fair election. This is clearly fraud. I don't see how you can compare the two scenarios. Edited February 27, 2018 by seanbrock

[Thanatos 2,847]

Oh gun control is absolutely not the only thing we need to do, Favre, I agree with you 100%. Gun control, to me, is a step in the right direction, but it is absolutely not the be all end all solution to this thing. There is no one solution to an issue this complex, but I believe having stricter gun control laws is definitely one part of that solution.

 

I would say that while having a gun may make you less likely to get robbed, it makes you far more likely to have that gun used in the commission of a crime than used to protect you from an invader.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Thanatos

[seanbrock 1,684]

If you need more than a basic hand gun or shot gun to protect yourself from a home invasion then you might have some serious enemies out there lol. Anyone who says those kind of weapons are for anything but killing, collection, or recreation is being extremely disingenuous or worse, that person may really need some help from a therapist or something. Let's be really about that for 2 seconds.

 

Having said that, I think that the frustration lies not with what you're saying but rather the dialogue surrounding the issue. It's 100% sensationalism. They like to try and get people so riled up about this shit that it's one issue people vote on. They do the same shit with abortion and gay marriage and it happens with both parties. Meanwhile we're in war after war and wealth continues to be extracted from the people and put into the pockets of plutocrats while we sit here and argue about this, they're sitting back laughing and counting their money.

Edited February 28, 2018 by seanbrock