• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

Actually he supposedly said "nothing important happened today". And if he said that it was cause he didn't know. Cause it was a very different world back then with nothing like today's technology. So it hardly matters. Not a great example.

The real reason it could work is that conventional armies tend to have a real hard time fighting guerilla armies and especially on the home turf.
 
#1 problem with being the away team is logistics. Supply lines are not a problem when you are in your own country.

Acceptable collateral damage and the willingness of the American military to attack Americans are the only issues. (I'm assuming the Posse Comitatus Act no longer matters- Fake History!)

In terms of asymmetrical warfare, there is no significant advantage including knowledge of or familiarity with terrain, climate, or allies anywhere that the Southern Civil War Reenactment Militia Brigade is going to have.

Other than that...sure?
 
It's hard to say exactly what would happen. But it's certainly true to say that an armed populous will almost certainly do better than a disarmed one.

I say this in theory only, as I've said in the past I think the government tyranny arguments is one of the worst for arguing against gun control.

The big problem I see is that they keep imagining that it'll be a scenario where day one everythings normal, day two they come in put in place martial law start putting people in camps and disarming the population all at once. Which is extremely unlikely.

Were something like this to happen it would most likely be very slow with the public being disarmed little by little with the most controversial weapons going first. A great many of the supposed gun owning patriots just waiting to take on the federal government won't in reality do it when they see that a huge portion of society sides against them and they could wind up dead. And the few who do aren't nearly enough to succeed.

It'll go step by step until the populations almost entirely disarmed, and THEN they do the very unpopular stuff. Once it's too late to fight back.

That's assuming they were to try something like what these types imagine at all which itself is unlikely.
 
JGrimez said:
Eagles of Death Metal frontman Jesse Hughes, who survived a terrorist attack at the Bataclan in Paris that left more than 90 people dead, lashed out at the March for Our Lives and the Parkland students advocating for increased gun control measures, calling the movement "pathetic" and exploitative.


Leftists lashed out at Hughes, calling his postings "inappropriate," and suggesting that he remove them out of respect for the Parkland survivors. Hughes appears to have relented; only one of several posts remains active.

Interestingly enough, many of the same people attacking Hughes for his Instagram posts defended the Parkland students as unassailable, largely because they had just experienced - and survived - a mass shooting. As victims, their voices are worth more, it seems, than those seeking to exercise their Constitutional right to protect themselves. But the same deference wasn't afforded to Hughes - perhaps because, in surviving a mass shooting, he became an advocate for principles unpopular with all the "right" people.
Click to expand...

Ugh, that guy is so awful. I can't stand his music or his politics.
It's ridiculous to accuse critics of his comments of hypocrisy (as this heavily implies) -

"Interestingly enough, many of the same people attacking Hughes for his Instagram posts defended the Parkland students as unassailable, largely because they had just experienced - and survived - a mass shooting"

I wonder if the fact that they are children is also somehow relevant...?

The way i see it, there is one side of this debate that are acting in a dignified manner.
If people opposed to any sort of gun control want to look like cold, callous assholes, they're going about it the right way.
Attacking the survivors the way they do is so fucking low.
 
That's the point here, you're classifying them as "survivors" and not as immature political activists (which they also are). People are not attacking the survivors, they're criticizing the specific students who have taken it upon themselves to be spokespeople for the gun control movement.
How about Kyle Kashuv? Also a survivor of Parkland except a conservative who argues for gun rights.
Being young isn't relevant either. If anything it gives them less credibility.

I also wouldn't call preying on the sympathies of honest people in order to further a questionable agenda as dignified in the slightest. And to hide behind the deaths of children to escape or deflect criticism is disgusting.
 
Would you be arguing this if all those kids were arguing that the 2nd amendment must be protected? I'll admit I kinda doubt it.

I'd be pissed if those kids parents were pressuring them to become antigun activists. But otherwise they can do whatever they like. Their youth does mean they're less likely to have a fully fleshed out comprehension of the subject, but it also means the same regarding their realizing their own lack of understanding. Far as I'm concerned if you attack them like you would a regular politician that's a scumbag thing to do. They've been through a horribly traumatic event. If you wanna argue that they're wrong there are much more tactful and considered ways to go about it.
 
David Hogg said:
It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected. What type of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn't take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.
Click to expand...

If he's going to make statements like that, tragedy survivor or not, I'm going to call him a demagogue (and worse).
 
You can call him whatever you like to the extent your right to free speech allows. But I think it's really heartless and a lot of others no doubt would say it's much worse than that.
 
That's the point here, you're classifying them as "survivors" and not as immature political activists (which they also are). People are not attacking the survivors, they're criticizing the specific students who have taken it upon themselves to be spokespeople for the gun control movement.

JGrimez said:
How about Kyle Kashuv? Also a survivor of Parkland except a conservative who argues for gun rights.
Click to expand...
not a survivor, right? you mean kyle kashuv the immature political activist (which he is) who's taken it upon himself to be the spokesperson for the gun rights movement. and he's young so he has even less credibility, right?

alasdair
 
If you get in front of the political spotlight you should expect some will disagree. Some very vocally. But they're still kids who've been through a trauma. Personally I'd rather attack the adults using them as political ammunition and not attack the kids politically at all. I certainly don't think it's OK to use childish name calling and insults. I wouldn't be that happy with that even if they weren't kids and trauma victims.
 
JessFR said:
You can call him whatever you like to the extent your right to free speech allows. But I think it's really heartless and a lot of others no doubt would say it's much worse than that.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
It's an exceptionally bad look.
I'm sure to some people it confirms their negative perceptions of the gun lobby.
 
alasdairm said:
That's the point here, you're classifying them as "survivors" and not as immature political activists (which they also are). People are not attacking the survivors, they're criticizing the specific students who have taken it upon themselves to be spokespeople for the gun control movement.

not a survivor, right? you mean kyle kashuv the immature political activist (which he is) who's taken it upon himself to be the spokesperson for the gun rights movement. and he's young so he has even less credibility, right?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Exactly, if you're going to give immature political activists a platform then give a voice to both sides.
 
Both sides do have a voice.

Who is taking away anyone's voice?
You think it's unfair to give survivors a platform? That is a truly bizarre sense of perceieved victimhood.
 
No - critics are fine with survivors having a platform, we are not fine with them hiding behind their "survivor" mentality as soon as their political agenda is questioned or challenged.

CNN news anchor Brooke Baldwin canceled her scheduled interview with Kyle Kashuv, a Parkland, Florida, high school student and survivor of the horrific Valentine’s Day shooting.
Kashuv, 16, has separated himself from the rest of the Parkland student advocates in his strong support for the Second Amendment and alternative safety proposals besides gun control or the banning of specific types of weapons.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top