Guns in America

[oldschooler]

3 hours ago, USN Bengal said:

 

IDGAF when the thread was started... because the entire thread has now turned into a hysteria laden fuck fest.

 

This thread is NOW at 40 pages... 20 of them have been in the last 2 MONTHS. The first 20 pages have many of us talking about the fact that we need to take action, and that something should've been done already. No presidents were flamed, there were some partisan things thrown out there... but NOTHING like there has been since February of this year.

 

IDGAF when it was started because it points to the fact there was a problem long before anyone but Russia knew Trump

was going to run for President. But seriously though, the reason it has gained 20 pages is, 1. I was off of work so I had a lot of

extra free time 2. It has been dominating the news the past 2 months.

 

 

Quote

 

Go back and actually look at the posts, and it's now turned into a anti-GOP, anti-conservative, and anti-Trump gang bang. The sad fucking fact is that the actions that everyone is screaming about today should've been taken in 1999 when Columbine occurred. 19 fucking years later and DUMBASSES are blaming this shit on just one party, one "class" (see conservative) of people, and that is a fucking joke.

 

I don't see a whole lot of Trump bashing in THIS thread. But I can start if you like.

Obama tried to do shit after Sandy Hook and was shot down by the Republican 

controlled Congress. The NRA funnels money in to the Republican party over

the Democratic party by a very wide margin. Conservatives are the majority

of people that are fighting gun control, well, because that's what they do.

If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

 

 

Quote

 

Every single damn president, congressman, senator, and SCOTUS... along with every damn American citizen, is to blame for this shit being what it is today.

 

Yes, there are those at the top of the pillar like the NRA who need to be brought down, but this disgusting display happening today with all the finger pointing is bullshit.

There is not one single accountable entity that should be blamed... it is everyone who has NOT taken action for over 2 fucking decades that is at fault.

 

Enough of the scorching rhetoric that makes anyone non-liberal be labeled as Satan... scorch every fucking person that has stood by and done nothing since at least Columbine.

 

GOP, DNC, SCOTUS... all fucking guilty for not protecting our children... whether it be gun control, guards and metal detectors for schools, mental health rebuilding and reporting, law enforecement agencies not doing their jobs etc... NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE AND EVEN THE SMALL AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN HAS NOT SAVED LIVES.

 

 

 

 

You can rail against both sides all you want on a lot of issues. Doing anything about gun reform is solely

on the Republicans, Conservatives and the NRA. That is just a fact.

[oldschooler]

 

[Jamie_B]

The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked

Analyzing 37 years of data, a Stanford team finds no basis for a theory at the heart of the modern gun-rights movement.

[|Elflocko|]

6 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked

Analyzing 37 years of data, a Stanford team finds no basis for a theory at the heart of the modern gun-rights movement.

[USN Bengal]

12 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked

Analyzing 37 years of data, a Stanford team finds no basis for a theory at the heart of the modern gun-rights movement.

 

5 hours ago, Elflocko said:

Did you read their "suggestions" and "findings"? Did you pay attention to their methodology used in their study?

 

The Stanford findings rest on two statistical methods with obscure-sounding technical names: panel data analysis and synthetic controls analysis. Panel data essentially tries to break down complex social phenomena—crime being very much one of those—by studying their smaller, more easily measurable components, like incarceration rates, police staffing levels, poverty, income, and population density.

Synthetic control analysis allows researchers to compare data recorded after the introduction of a change—like a right-to-carry law—with projections based on what might have happened had the change never occurred. The synthetic controls projection is based on demographic data and outcomes in demographically similar places.

 

Cherry picking a THEORY (and that's exactly what this is) and using it as FACT is exactly what your chosen rhetoric wants you to do. Just like the NRA's THEORY should and would not be believed as correct by anyone with any modicum of intelligence (as evidence, we present you the GOP and all conservatives by what is said here), the same should be said about this one.

 

While the article has many fine points, and quite a few I agree with, where the mistake is made is when anyone does a study using their theories and calls it "evidence".

 

If it is not based purely in fact, it is NOT evidence. Panel data and synthetic control analysis is NOT based in pure fact, it is conjecture and opinion base research using SOME facts.

So to say that ANYTHING is debunked is pure bullshit. The NRA studies should never have to be debunked, as they aren't intelligent enough to warrant being debunked.

I realize this was generated by academics to who are obviously anti-gun as a weapon to use against those they deem non-academics (go ahead and argue with me on this point), just as the closing paragraphs state;

 

The NRA has gone to great lengths to foment the idea that the right to carry guns is the bedrock of American citizenship, and the option of lethal self defense is "the first freedom." Gun companies market firearms to appeal to consumers' need to see themselves as powerful and, often, hyper-masculine protectors. It's hard for an academic paper to break through those kinds of beliefs.

But policymakers and judges are a different kind of audience than gun buyers or voters. Donohue hopes his findings make it in front of those influential eyes.

"The Supreme Court is eventually going to have to decide if there's a right to carry," he said, speaking the day after the justices declined to hear a challenge to California's restrictive right-to-carry law. "What will they make of this evidence?"

 

Now this is where the NRA, the anti-gun, and the politicians make their money and the public goes right past without noticing for the most part. The bolded and underlined part of the above is a direct insult to those who purchase weapons or vote... quite a bit of the population isn't it? NRA uses the same tactics in their proven bullshit, except they make the left look like sissies that the gun owners will "have to save" come armeggedon.

 

Another ignored fact is that the drug problems in this country have become worse and that has also been a part of the rise in gun ownership and CCW rates.

I know for a fact that the opioid epidemic has made this country a much more dangerous place to live in, and that the crime rates stemming from this tragedy have risen everywhere. Opioids were the factor behind the house invasion in our neighborhood last year out here in the boonies of Virginia... two lives lost in what everyone has considered "a safe place to live". The owner of the house would be dead if he didn't kill them first. I would be dead if I hadn't stopped two punks with guns from breaking in my home in Virginia Beach in 2004. We were considered in a "safe area" in a "safe city".

 

So to blame the NRA for the rise is disingenuous at best. They play a large part is making it a "all or none" argument, and they suck ass, but it is not just their influence that has caused the problem

 

What is the truth when it comes to gun laws? We'll probably never know unfortunately, but all the theories in the world can never be used as evidence... because they are not. 

 

 

[Jamie_B]

Isn't suggesting that academics are anti-gun conjecture?

 

Specifically what makes you think they cherry picked this theory? Isn't this no different than running the scientific method to determine if your theory is correct?

 

I guess I'm not following why you think their approach is flawed?

 

But even if you think they did do that, there is some data in there that I thought was alarming, specifically the notion that there was a higher rate of violent crime with the carry laws than without them.

[Jamie_B]

Pro-gun group in Texas re-enacts Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds

 

" A pro-gun rights group in Texas re-enacted the Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds, in an attempt to see whether an “armed civilian” could have stopped the two gunmen who attacked the Paris office of the satirical magazine, killing 12. The civilian “died” in almost every scenario except immediate flight from the scene."

[USN Bengal]

24 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Isn't suggesting that academics are anti-gun conjecture?

 

Specifically what makes you think they cherry picked this theory? Isn't this no different than running the scientific method to determine if your theory is correct?

 

I guess I'm not following why you think their approach is flawed?

 

But even if you think they did do that, there is some data in there that I thought was alarming, specifically the notion that there was a higher rate of violent crime with the carry laws than without them.

I am speaking from personal experience Jamie about the academics that I know, the academics that have interacted with me, and the academics across the country that scream out just how anti-gun they are. No... it isn't every one of them Jamie. Are you willing to say that the vast majority of academicians are NOT anti-gun?

 

How can you call their data relevant, if they are using conjecture in their theory?

 

Synthetic control analysis allows researchers to compare data recorded after the introduction of a change—like a right-to-carry law—with projections based on what might have happened had the change never occurred. The synthetic controls projection is based on demographic data and outcomes in demographically similar places.

 

Panel data essentially tries to break down complex social phenomena—crime being very much one of those—by studying their smaller, more easily measurable components, like incarceration rates, police staffing levels, poverty, income, and population density.

 

What MIGHT have happened... in this "science" where is the fact? If you are studying smaller, more easily measured components and then extrapolating your data from your GUESSES about those other objects that you FEEL are related, where are the facts in that?

 

It's theory Jamie, and theories are best guesses. The reference to Texas in the "VICE" quoted article states this;

 

Take Texas, for example. Donohue's projections found that ten years after the Lone Star State put right to carry into effect, violent crime was more than 16 percent higher than it would have been without that law, as laid out in the graph below.

 

 

Why didn't they state THIS FACT that Donohue himself stated in the original paper;

 

The central finding of the paper, which was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research on 12 June 2017, is that:

Right-to-carry (RTC) laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15% percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law.

 

Texas experienced a 19.7 percent decrease in its aggregate violent crime rate in the ten years following its RTC law (between 1996 and 2006), while the state’s synthetic control [what Donohue projects would have happened without the law] experienced a larger 30.8 percent decline.

 

Examining statistics from the US Census Bureau and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, the authors estimate that states with stricter concealed-carry laws saw crime fall by 42 percent from 1977 to 2014. That drop is more than four times greater than the 9 percent decrease seen in right-to-carry states.

 

This is what is meant by cherry picking Jamie. Where you picked up the link to the study (VICE, a very liberal leaning entity) leads people to believe that violent crime ROSE even with RTC.

That is not the case though is it? The THEORY is that violent crime would've dropped MORE!

As a matter of fact, I would like to know if they looked into whether different places where the drop was greater and had stricter gun laws reported violent crime statistics differently than did those with not as strict gun laws. I know at least 5 NYC police officers that will tell you that they have changed how they reported violent crimes to make it look better than it is.

  

So you have this theory (that I WISH could be proven) that violent crime would've dropped more without RTC... and people are claiming that it debunks the "Good Guy with a Gun Theory"... which it DOESN'T.

[oldschooler]

 

 

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

 

 

[oldschooler]

 

[Jrod]

On 3/31/2018 at 11:56 AM, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

Yeah I made a thread saying how I would actually like to discuss topics with people with different opinions than mine.

I'm not trying to win a debate. I could care less about winning a debate. I want to see our fractured society try

and be pieced back together. And you are the one that started off by taking about the Left and blah blah

and then came from a totally Right talking point. Just thought I would point that out to you since you

didn't seem aware of your own leanings.   

 

 

I'm not dismissing anything. Other than that totally far Right Daily caller that delves in to conspiracy shit.

if you want to meet in the middle. It is best not to come from the far Right. Because then EVERYTHING

is coming from the Left. Liberal and Conservative are different than Left and Right. At least to me they are.

 

I will try and sift through the snark. And "dismiss it" as to not get in to a pissing contest. 

That is absolutely the last thing I want.

 

 

 

 

How would you like it if I posted all of the photo shopped pictures of those kids tearing up the Constitution

or all of the conspiracy bullshit about "crisis actors" and host of fringe views and said typical Conservative view points?

 

I nor anyone else I have seen posting in this thread are taking the position of banning all guns,

repealing the 2nd amendment or anything close to resembling that. So why even talk about that angle?

 

 

 

 

Sound logic and reasoning is we have a very unique problem in America where people are being murdered in everyday, mundane places.

How is that irrational? And you're shining a microscope on this shooting and acting like it's the only one. There was a shooting in Benton, Ky

just prior to this one. There was a shooting in Lake Mills Maryland just after this one. There have been other mass shootings at places other

than schools. So maybe you should focus on what is being actually said instead OMFG the MMS and Liberal agenda is the driving force here.

 

 

 

In case you didn't realize, I said that because of how dismissive you are of the other kids because of their Liberal stance ect.

 

I want every kid, whether they were there or not, whether they have been impacted personally or not, whether they 

share my views or not speaking out. People their age were the driving forces behind the civil right movement and 

the Vietnam war. They are forcing the politicians and public to talk about this on a consistent basis. I do not share 

Kyle Kashvu's opinions. But I applaud him for forcing the issue of guns to be talked about consistently, until there

is positive change.

 

 

 

 

I think the think the biggest catalyst was Columbine and has been copy catted since by lone wolves rather than partners.

I realize Columbine was not the first school shooting. I just think it was the most publicized and even in some cases romanticized.

AR-15s and the like make it easier for 1 to do as much damage as 2. 

 

I think the shifting of our economy and both parents working, kids left alone and not nurtured like before and just

how our society has changed overall has had an impact. They were truly simpler times. But we can't put all of

that back in a box. For one I don't see our Government making it so where the middle class can live off of just one 

parent working. And they sure don't want to help single parents raise their kids with any kind of programs.

But those are other topics completely.

 

I do not think more guns is the answer. I just don't.

 

I don't think turning every day places in to fortresses is the answer. Sure some security helps at special events

but going to school, church and clubs (which the Pulse had armed guards) are not special events. It's every day

shit. You can't turn every soft target in to hard targets. That is not a land of the free. And it still wouldn't stop

people that shouldn't guns, from obtaining them and going on a shooting spree. The majority of them aren't

worried about dying. They end up taking their own lives. We can't turn everywhere you go in to potential

war zones. Where bullets are flying from both directions. So what can we control, with a bigger more 

effective impact? Guns. The weapons themselves. 

 

I realize the only person that thinks exactly like me on all the views I have is me. I'm not so arrogant 

to actually think "agree with me or be wrong". Hell, when I put that line in my signature it was completely

about the Bengals, because that is all I discussed. And it was meant as a joke. 

 

I hope we and others can start to try and understand each other more from this point forward.

Happy Saturday to you and your family. 

Gave you an upvote for your response, Old... for ALLLL that it's worth.

I realize my tone came off as snarky - honestly, not my intention. Admittedly, some shit just really "triggers" me and this topic is one because of all the fault I see in the arguments... mainly from the liberal perspective regarding the gun topic. I think self awareness in how people attempt to communicate their points would go a long way universally. The condescending and superiority position is mainly response for the shit show of internet "discussion".

Being that it is days later and I've likely forgotten specific things I intended to say and lost train of thought since then, I suppose I'm just going to attempt to summarize my position/thoughts because frankly, I can't be concerned enough to continue any potential back-and-forth.


One of the points I was trying to make before was that to the position of "No one is trying to take YOUR guns/rights" - it's evident that there are people in favor of such thing. I mean, the Daily Caller video showed real video, whether you like the source or disagree with other biased nonsense they've endorsed before, of people advocating such things. Even if you don't like that video particularly, I've come across dozens more from other sources. All of which demonstrate people who are strongly opinionated about "bans" but have no knowledge about what they are advocating against.  I haven't kept them on hand so unfortunately I don't have any links. I'm sure you get the gist anyway. Ignorance in numbers is dangerous and ignorance can be "useful". Many people who explain what they want out of legislation are unaware of the legislation already in place (i.e. background checks).

My main issue with the proposal for stricter legislation goes back to what I alluded to before with government and law-enforcement overreach. Hypothetically, if the legislation everyone is advocating for actually gets passed, what happens when/if it isn't effective? Does it go further? Or are people going to then realize that you can't legislate away violence? I mean, are we concerned about murder caused by guns or are we concerned about murder itself? Would the numbers of gun deaths going down slightly be worth the potential "cost" (whatever it could be)?

I too don't agree that the answer is arming everyone and creating a lock-down environment. Armed guards, metal detectors, video surveillance - such an environment would be too distracting and counter-productive. The notion feel very "police-state-like", just on a smaller scale. I don't think that's a precedent we want to set. However, I am fine if a teacher voluntarily, discretely wanted to carry as long as they have the background proven to hold that responsibility. It should go without saying that that related proposal isn't meant to infer that every teach should HAVE to carry.

To end, I want to cite the topic of social change as discussed within the Frankfurt School of philosophy where associated theorist Herbert Marcuse said (in paraphrase), "Be careful not to confuse 'movement' with 'progress'. When the forces of domination give way to the forces of liberation, they must be aware to not become the very force they stand so strongly against".

Here's a video that appears more candid and less produced... some opinion from people of both sides:

A bit of a facetious take from a libertarian independent journalist, Carey Wedler:

 

[Jamie_B]

Talk to me about tyranny when more than half of the citizens decide to vote.

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

18 hours ago, Jrod said:

Gave you an upvote for your response, Old... for ALLLL that it's worth.

I realize my tone came off as snarky - honestly, not my intention. Admittedly, some shit just really "triggers" me and this topic is one because of all the fault I see in the arguments... mainly from the liberal perspective regarding the gun topic. I think self awareness in how people attempt to communicate their points would go a long way universally. The condescending and superiority position is mainly response for the shit show of internet "discussion".

Being that it is days later and I've likely forgotten specific things I intended to say and lost train of thought since then, I suppose I'm just going to attempt to summarize my position/thoughts because frankly, I can't be concerned enough to continue any potential back-and-forth.


One of the points I was trying to make before was that to the position of "No one is trying to take YOUR guns/rights" - it's evident that there are people in favor of such thing. I mean, the Daily Caller video showed real video, whether you like the source or disagree with other biased nonsense they've endorsed before, of people advocating such things. Even if you don't like that video particularly, I've come across dozens more from other sources. All of which demonstrate people who are strongly opinionated about "bans" but have no knowledge about what they are advocating against.  I haven't kept them on hand so unfortunately I don't have any links. I'm sure you get the gist anyway. Ignorance in numbers is dangerous and ignorance can be "useful". Many people who explain what they want out of legislation are unaware of the legislation already in place (i.e. background checks).

My main issue with the proposal for stricter legislation goes back to what I alluded to before with government and law-enforcement overreach. Hypothetically, if the legislation everyone is advocating for actually gets passed, what happens when/if it isn't effective? Does it go further? Or are people going to then realize that you can't legislate away violence? I mean, are we concerned about murder caused by guns or are we concerned about murder itself? Would the numbers of gun deaths going down slightly be worth the potential "cost" (whatever it could be)?

I too don't agree that the answer is arming everyone and creating a lock-down environment. Armed guards, metal detectors, video surveillance - such an environment would be too distracting and counter-productive. The notion feel very "police-state-like", just on a smaller scale. I don't think that's a precedent we want to set. However, I am fine if a teacher voluntarily, discretely wanted to carry as long as they have the background proven to hold that responsibility. It should go without saying that that related proposal isn't meant to infer that every teach should HAVE to carry.

To end, I want to cite the topic of social change as discussed within the Frankfurt School of philosophy where associated theorist Herbert Marcuse said (in paraphrase), "Be careful not to confuse 'movement' with 'progress'. When the forces of domination give way to the forces of liberation, they must be aware to not become the very force they stand so strongly against".

Here's a video that appears more candid and less produced... some opinion from people of both sides:

A bit of a facetious take from a libertarian independent journalist, Carey Wedler:

 

 

 

I gave an up vote back for what it's worth.

 

I don't know what will happen when change is actually enacted. I don't see how it could make things worse though.

And you cross that bridge if you ever come to it.

 

78% of Americans don't own guns. So that means a very vocal minority of the minority, is acting like everyone's right

are being taken away. I'm not asking for everyone's rights to be taken away. I'm asking for people that actually use the

right to be given more scrutiny and responsibility than they have now. I'm asking for them to conform and be willing to

be inconvenienced rather than expect that from the majority. I don't think I am asking for a lot. I think if someone is

truly a responsible gun owning, law abiding citizen, then they should be for that too. Like I have said before, the people being killed

aren't asked what their views are. They're just as dead as people that want guns laws and the gun culture to change.

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

[Jrod]

On 4/3/2018 at 10:38 PM, Jamie_B said:

Talk to me about tyranny when more than half of the citizens decide to vote.

Vote for what? Continuity?

You're only given an illusion of choice. "Choice" is a mythology we've been conditioned over generations to believe. Democrats, Republicans - they merely represent two different means to the same end. Democratic voters (speaking in terms of majority) didn't even want Hilary; they voted for that nut-job Sanders who said all the things young people wanted to hear. You see how that went... People want to act appalled by the alleged Russia election tampering. Our whole political system is a farce. We don't need a Russian boogeyman to blame it on.

The country is dictated by the wealthy; politicians are merely the tools used to maintain the status quo. American Capitalism is corrupted. The Federal Reserve is an institution that "can't fail" and political decisions have and will continue to be made to ensure that and they'll be made on the backs of you and me. The war budget is infinite and so are the tax hikes (its the solution to everything!). Pay loyalties to your Kings, serf, and you can continue to live "free". Support the troops, pledge allegiance to the flag, and get back to work; you have an empire to support.

[Jrod]

On 4/4/2018 at 12:41 PM, oldschooler said:

 

I don't know what will happen when change is actually enacted. I don't see how it could make things worse though.

And you cross that bridge if you ever come to it.

 

78% of Americans don't own guns. So that means a very vocal minority of the minority, is acting like everyone's right

are being taken away. I'm not asking for everyone's rights to be taken away. I'm asking for people that actually use the

right to be given more scrutiny and responsibility than they have now. I'm asking for them to conform and be willing to

be inconvenienced rather than expect that from the majority. I don't think I am asking for a lot. I think if someone is

truly a responsible gun owning, law abiding citizen, then they should be for that too. Like I have said before, the people being killed

aren't asked what their views are. They're just as dead as people that want guns laws and the gun culture to change.

 

"I don't know what will happen when change is actually enacted. I don't see how it could make things worse though.

And you cross that bridge if you ever come to it."

That's kind of what I was alluding to though - to not view mere movement as progress. There is consequence to every decision. We can't look at the issues with such short-sight. So yes, while enacting stricter control might limit the current number of people who can (legally) obtain a gun it guarantees nothing. You restrict the legal means for someone to obtain a gun and it may only further enable the option for that someone to infringe upon or harm another to obtain one. Moreover, if we're speaking about taking a look at limiting people who have shown signs of mental illness or questionable personalities - who gets to decide on that stuff? Who legislates and interprets such a thing and how so? Do you want lawmakers, politicians, law enforcement making those calls? Talk about treading on a VERY slippery slope. As I mentioned in my initial post: one thing most people can agree on is the observation of corruption and overreach from people and entities in a position of power. Collectively, police have not shown a positive light on themselves regarding gun violence, especially against minorities. We want to talk about restricting law enforcement too?

We're on a Bengals message board here... the NFL. Parallels can be drawn with how they're trying to legislate the physicality of the game to limit injuries, specifically concussions. Each year they're implementing rules at the expense of the game. Refs are more and more making themselves an aspect of the game because they're trying to enforce rules that can't realistically be carried out with consideration to the nature of the game... not without completely changing it. I think we fans can partly agree that it has less to do with the concern for safety (though not to completely discount those intentions) and more so to do with deflecting the lawsuits that have come down on the league in the recent years. It's the largest sports-related business (monetarily speaking) in the country by miles. Protect the shield at all costs. Otherwise, where has this concern been prior? The result of this? The proof is in the pudding. Is the product the same? Is it more enjoyable?

You can't legislate physicality and injuries out of a sport predicated on physical contact. You can't legislate violence and bad intent out of a people who have evidently not evolved past their primitive tendencies. Legislation is an attempt to fix problems immediately and it often just creates more - laws to fix laws. Our issue is a cultural one that needs to be fixed "organically"... somehow; not done with "red tape".

Criminals should not dictate how everyone else gets to live, but we're essentially letting them do just that. In terms of "freedom" - Ok, "no one is advocating for taking your rights away". Maybe not. It doesn't have to be done outright though. It doesn't have to be consciously or intentionally done - that's not what is being said. Freedom is something oppressing power historically, systematically takes away. As I said, I'm not a gun owner, but that doesn't mean I don't see the principle in the matter. One can call it paranoia or irrational fear all they want - NO ONE can call it either way in absolute certainty - but I am aware of the possibility of "death by one thousand paper cuts"; and that possibility is relevant, among with other topics, with this one.

The debate on possession of guns is unique. Once a decision is made and we cross that so-called bridge there's no going back... peacefully anyway. So we better make sure its really a bridge worth crossing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

[Jamie_B]

2 hours ago, Jrod said:

Vote for what? Continuity?

You're only given an illusion of choice. "Choice" is a mythology we've been conditioned over generations to believe. Democrats, Republicans - they merely represent two different means to the same end. Democratic voters (speaking in terms of majority) didn't even want Hilary; they voted for that nut-job Sanders who said all the things young people wanted to hear. You see how that went... People want to act appalled by the alleged Russia election tampering. Our whole political system is a farce. We don't need a Russian boogeyman to blame it on.

The country is dictated by the wealthy; politicians are merely the tools used to maintain the status quo. American Capitalism is corrupted. The Federal Reserve is an institution that "can't fail" and political decisions have and will continue to be made to ensure that and they'll be made on the backs of you and me. The war budget is infinite and so are the tax hikes (its the solution to everything!). Pay loyalties to your Kings, serf, and you can continue to live "free". Support the troops, pledge allegiance to the flag, and get back to work; you have an empire to support.

The vote for 3rd party, or run yourself (also lol at calling Bernie a nut job), just don't talk to me about tyranny when most of the citizenry are in dereliction of duty to their very obligation of being a citizen in a republic. You can't have tyranny when the subjects don't even participate. 

 

[Jrod]

45 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

The vote for 3rd party, or run yourself (also lol at calling Bernie a nut job), just don't talk to me about tyranny when most of the citizenry are in dereliction of duty to their very obligation of being a citizen in a republic. You can't have tyranny when the subjects don't even participate. 

 

Oh. What about when the 3rd party is represented by Gary Johnson and your next "choice" is Jill Stein? We all know damn well that the U.S. political universe only truly operates under the tired, old Democrat vs Republican paradigm. The Libertarian, Green, and whateverhaveyou party are only there as fodder and appearance. Also, not everyone is qualified. Who would want the position anyway? Besides people undeserving of it.

Where exactly are you pulling the subject of tyranny from though?

[Jamie_B]

1 minute ago, Jrod said:

Oh. What about when the 3rd party is represented by Gary Johnson and your next "choice" is Jill Stein? We all know damn well that the U.S. political universe only truly operates under the tired, old Democrat vs Republican paradigm. The Libertarian, Green, and whateverhaveyou party are only there as fodder and appearance. Also, not everyone is qualified. Who would want the position anyway? Besides people undeserving of it.

Where exactly are you pulling the subject of tyranny from though?

I believe that we will get better candidates when more people participate. 

 

In your video titled "Your 2nd amendment can't protect you from tyranny"

 

This notion that we need the 2nd amendment to protect us from tyranny is chimera when most of our citizenry doesnt even participate.