Another school shooting - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15048985
Godstud wrote:What's wrong with Sandy Hook people suing the gun manufacturer? That's capitalism right there.

Those Sandy Hook people are left-wing lunatics that think guns and gun manufactures are bad instead of the murderers.
#15048986
If the fault isn't that of people, then you go after the manufacturer. It's quite logical, and could set a precedent.

That you, an NRA fanatic, doesn't like it, makes me supremely happy. I hope they succeed.
#15048988
:D I thought it was sufficiently over-the-top, that people would get it. I forget that sometimes it's hard to tell when people are joking on forums where such extreme views are held. All good.
#15048990
Godstud wrote::D I thought it was sufficiently over-the-top, that people would get it. I forget that sometimes it's hard to tell when people are joking on forums where such extreme views are held. All good.


:)

I mean, I feel like we're on the same page as far as guns go anyway. Had a friend in Russia ask me right off the bat; ''What the fuck is wrong with America and the guns?'' when we first met.... I said; ''people think they can defend themselves from criminals and potentially from their government in a revolution if it becomes tyrannical''. He replied; ''so the fucking problem with America is stupidity.''...
#15048997
Drlee wrote:First of all there is no right to own an AR-15.

Sure there is. There's just no right to buy or sell them. Gun control generally uses the commerce clause.

BigSteve wrote:Do you favor banning the Mini-14? See, because you would be the first. Not a single anti-American gun hater brings up the Mini-14 in the "assault weapon" debate but, operationally, it's the exact same weapon as an AR-15...

You don't understand BigSteve. An AR-15 is usually black in color and has a pistol grip, which makes it super duper, really, really scary. If it has all of the same capability, uses a wood stock and no pistol grip, it's nowhere near as scary. So that's okay.

BigSteve wrote:Your typical anti-American gun hater doesn't find mass shootings sexy until the number of dead closes in towards double digits.

That's why you didn't read anything about it...

And the shooter was Asian. Only white shooters make the heavy rotation news cycle.

Godstud wrote:You are delusional enough to think that a right they gave you 200 years ag0, that was mainly to prevent Britain from retaking USA, applies now? :knife:

It applies now. The SCOTUS says so too.

Godstud wrote:Gun controls are not unreasonable, and in fact work.

We have gun control in California. What went wrong in the instant case Godstud?

Godstud wrote: Even without a second amendment, do you think that a foreign government is going to take over?

The United Kingdom wasn't a foreign government at the time of the Revolution. It's also about overthrowing domestic tyranny.

Godstud wrote:What's wrong with Sandy Hook people suing the gun manufacturer? That's capitalism right there.

What makes you think torts are capitalist?
By Sivad
#15049005
it's funny that liberals will always look for social reasons and environmental causes for everything and anything but on this issue the libtards go into full pathological denial mode and refuse to admit that it's the mass industrial education system, the mass drugging, and the demented culture that's driving this problem. this one is just bad apples for the libtards. :knife:
By Sivad
#15049006
Sivad wrote:this one is just bad apples for the libtards. :knife:


because if it's not then it's a total indictment on the whole libtard industrial government.
#15049010
Drlee wrote:The sad thing is that they almost never define what they mean by Cultural Marxism.



Well, that is not true. There have been plenty of posts discussing it. But why not just inform yourself by reading on the subject?


Godstud wrote:Anything they believe is bad, is cultural marxism. :lol:

The trope of "cultural Marxism" has been steadily gaining traction among the broad and diverse entity that is the radical right (although, hating diversity, would baulk at you saying so), where it serves as an umbrella term variously responsible for such un-American and anti-Western ills as atheism, secularism, political correctness, gay rights, sexual liberation, feminism, affirmative action, liberalism, socialism, anarchism, and, above all, multiculturalism. The ultimate goal of cultural Marxism, we're led to believe, is to slowly and stealthily dilute and subvert white, Christian Western culture, thereby opening sovereign nations to rule by a one-world corporate government. Whether that's by Jews, lizards, or communists isn't always clear.

And so cultural Marxism—this protean right-wing boogeyman responsible for queer studies, globalization, bad modern art, women wanting a life on top of baby making, African American studies, the 1960s, post-structuralism (essentially everything that isn't nationalist, "white," and Christian)—ends up becoming akin to a cheap condom: stretched to the point of uselessness.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78mn ... -alt-right



So Habermas and the Frankfurt school are just a trope. I am sure critical theorists like it that way. So do you know anything about the subject other than what progressive news sites tell you to think? Or are you just scared that you will be seen as a bad boy if you are seen to be not in step with your progressive overseers?

Honestly, I think @Rich over emphasises the importance of cultural Marxists. One could mention corporations, the security state and other threats to equality and political freedom aside from the intellectual snobbery that is cultural Marxism. It is all absolutism of one type or another. There has always been a trend to absolutism. It is the very thing liberalism was created in opposition to.

The problem with the Liberal West, of which both you and @Drlee are products, is not cultural Marxism, feminism, multiculturalism or even corporations. It is Western nowhere men, like you two, who would dismiss belief systems hostile to your interests while maintaining a pretence of holding some sort of principled beliefs of your own. In actuality, you only represent self interest and thus are at pains to avoid the controversial.

You stand for nothing. The majority of the people of the West today stand for nothing. That is what is wrong with Western culture. Liberalism is viewed as something that someone else has to fight for. Just a culture of nowhere people who inherited their fortune.
By Rich
#15049044
Drlee wrote:The sad thing is that they almost never define what they mean by Cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is a confluence of 3 phenomena, but the key idea to bear in mind is the eleventh thesis on Feuerback
Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it

Implicit in this perhaps seemingly innocuous statement is the suppression of truth in the service of hate. Once one grasps this one realises that the driving hatred of the genocides of the Holdomor, the Great Leap Forward or the Cambodia Killing Fields, were not aberrant distortions of Marx, but inherent in Marxism from its inception.

The 3 streams of the modern Cultural Marxist Hegemony are:

1 A change in strategy and orientation by traditional Marxists away from the industrialised countries manual working class to he so called imperialised peoples and other supposedly oppressed groups. We see the beginnings of this even with Lenin prior to the first world war. We see a further shifts with the likes of Gramsci and Luckacs, the demoralisation strategy of the Soviet Union after the second world War and then with western Trotskyists, Maoist and Euro Communists from the late 1960s. Although they protest their difference, in practice it is often difficult to tell an Orthodox Marxist from a Cultural Marxist.

2 The non Marxist but Marxist influenced ideologies, of various "anti oppression" ideologies. These people are totally on board with the 11th Thesis, even if their professed central object of hatred is different

3 The mass expansion of further and higher education in the Arts and Social Sciences that serve no productive role. There is a huge psychological imperative to give meaning, status and moral virtue to these so called "studies". They desperately want to believe that they are not merely engaged in misinterpreting the world but in a Manichaean struggle against evil.
#15049048
Sad as it is, this is to be expected from a violent country that also glorifies violence in its entertainment industry and allows children not-so-difficult access to guns and pretty much no access to mental healthcare, unless their parents are a) rich enough and b) pay attention to their kids / care enough.
#15049077
Drlee wrote:On POFO it had not been mentioned. I read plenty about it in the press.


No you didn't because, unless you lived in San Diego at the time, it wasn't widely reported.

I'm a member of six different political forums. Every single time the subject of school shootings come up, Santana is never mentioned, unless I mention it. It didn't get a lot of play, primarily because the shooter was a kid using a stolen .22 revolver and not an AR-15, and because there wasn't a high body count...

Visit your girlfriend's liquor store and load up the Visa.


Was just there last night for a tasting. Picked up a couple of bottles of some different wines. I prefer Merlots, but the Cabernets I bought are pretty robust. Can't wait for Thanksgiving...
#15049096
@Rich , you said;

Cultural Marxism is a confluence of 3 phenomena, but the key idea to bear in mind is the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach


Right. But that's Marx's critique of his contemporary Left, that it wasn't enough to understand the origins of religious belief in order to eliminate religion, one had to actually go out and eliminate religion. As Monotheism is the primary cluster of religion in European/Western Civilization, and given your own antipathy to Monotheism, is it not disingenuous and a little ''Cultural Marxist'' yourself in overlooking this primary aspect of what you're talking about?

Implicit in this perhaps seemingly innocuous statement is the suppression of truth in the service of hate. Once one grasps this one realises that the driving hatred of the genocides of the Holdomor, the Great Leap Forward or the Cambodia Killing Fields, were not aberrant distortions of Marx, but inherent in Marxism from its inception.


Atheism, or rather Antitheism, is indeed a basic component of Marxist thinking from the very beginning, but not necessarily a basic component of the overall desire of many people for economic and social justice in the form of some sort of Socialist system. The Antitheism has indeed hobbled and even destroyed the real Left, so one might be permitted I believe to think that ''Cultural Marxism'' has served as a means to divert useful change not employ it.

The 3 streams of the modern Cultural Marxist Hegemony are:

1 A change in strategy and orientation by traditional Marxists away from the industrialised countries manual working class to he so called imperialised peoples and other supposedly oppressed groups. We see the beginnings of this even with Lenin prior to the first world war. We see a further shifts with the likes of Gramsci and Luckacs, the demoralisation strategy of the Soviet Union after the second world War and then with western Trotskyists, Maoist and Euro Communists from the late 1960s. Although they protest their difference, in practice it is often difficult to tell an Orthodox Marxist from a Cultural Marxist.


This change in strategy and orientation rendered the traditional Marxists impotent.

2 The non Marxist but Marxist influenced ideologies, of various "anti oppression" ideologies. These people are totally on board with the 11th Thesis, even if their professed central object of hatred is different


It generally isn't different.

3 The mass expansion of further and higher education in the Arts and Social Sciences that serve no productive role. There is a huge psychological imperative to give meaning, status and moral virtue to these so called "studies". They desperately want to believe that they are not merely engaged in misinterpreting the world but in a Manichaean struggle against evil.


This I agree with. But again, since the Capitalists are footing the bill, surely they must also know that they're paying for these ninnies to be stupid and ineffective also?
#15049097
That you, an NRA fanatic, doesn't like it, makes me supremely happy. I hope they succeed.


Fuck the NRA. They used to be a gun safety group. Now they are an arm of the republican party funded by gun manufacturers and people to stupid to see that they are being played like a jukebox.

If four and five year old children can put up with active shooter drills, gun owners can put up with background checks, magazine limits and waiting periods to buy guns.
#15049107
Drlee wrote:If four and five year old children can put up with active shooter drills, gun owners can put up with background checks, magazine limits and waiting periods to buy guns.


I actually have no problem with much of this.

I absolutely support background checks. But a person should be able to get a background check even if he's not buying a gun. If it's done only at the time of purchase, then the government knows what gun is being purchased by whom, and they simply have no reason to know that information. If it's done whenever, then the background check information can be stored online and accessed by dealers to ascertain whether or not someone's completed a background check before purchasing a firearm.

If someone has a CCW, there's no logical reason to subject them to a waiting period. Otherwise, I think 48 hours is reasonable. Back in the 1970's my Dad, who was a former New York State Trooper, had to wait almost three weeks to get his Colt Python. It took almost six months for him to get his CCW, which he justified because he was a driver for Exxon during the gas crisis and drivers were being hijacked and, in a few cases, killed for their trucks. Waiting periods of those durations are absolutely unnecessary.

I don't really see the need for putting limits on magazine capacity (and thank you for not calling it a "clip"). It really takes no appreciable time at all to expel a spent magazine and replace it...
#15049128
I absolutely support background checks. But a person should be able to get a background check even if he's not buying a gun.


That would be fine if it were done every year or even six months for the obvious reason.

If it's done only at the time of purchase, then the government knows what gun is being purchased by whom, and they simply have no reason to know that information.


I have no problem with the government knowing that I own guns and what kinds. But then I do not own guns so that I might have to deploy them against the soldiers of my own country. I find the very possibility reprehensible. I will admit that the rise of an increasingly fascist state gives me pause though. Especially this week in the light of a president who pardoned war criminals.

If someone has a CCW, there's no logical reason to subject them to a waiting period.


I agree provided the state is assiduous in policing those who have them against their criminal database.

Otherwise, I think 48 hours is reasonable.


I assume you mean 48 hours form the completion of the background investigation.

I sill set aside the idea of a gasoline truck driver needing to arm himself as a bit of an overreaction even in those days but I would point out that a CCW would do an interstate truck driver little good because the license he holds would not cover all states.


I don't really see the need for putting limits on magazine capacity (and thank you for not calling it a "clip"). It really takes no appreciable time at all to expel a spent magazine and replace it...


If you believe that magazine capacity is irrelevant you also understand that we soldiers, disagree with you. So does the US military which increased magazine capacity from 20 to 30. Some souls even taped two 20 round magazines together but I never did. (In those days you were smart to only load 18 rounds anyway because the piece of shit magazines were subject to jamming.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for a civilian to need a military style assault rifle. None. Not unless they contemplate taking on the police or the military. And that is a whole other discussion entirely.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15049130
BigSteve wrote:"clip"

Technically, a detachable box magazine is not a clip.

But does it really matter?

We all know that @Drlee was not talking about chargers/stripper clips and that for shooters of a certain age the terms 'clip' and 'magazine' are interchangeable (Example: In the 60's, Remington Arms when marketing their wares in the popular gun press would invariably call their rifle magazines, clips).

As to the shootings...

If you give guns to people, people will die. Guns are designed to kill.


:|
#15049134
Drlee wrote:That would be fine if it were done every year or even six months for the obvious reason.


Why?

If a person completes a background check, it's done. If he's later deemed unfit through either a medical diagnosis or running afoul of the law, then his record in the database is flagged. There's no need to conduct routine background checks...

I have no problem with the government knowing that I own guns and what kinds.


That's fine.

I do. Many people do. Believe it or not, many good, sane Americans have an issue with it. You not having a problem with it doesn't trump someone else having a problem with it...

But then I do not own guns so that I might have to deploy them against the soldiers of my own country.


The very reason we are the country we are today is because of the presence of an armed citizenry...

I find the very possibility reprehensible.


As do I.

But, as reprehensible a thought as it might be, if it's necessary would you rather be the citizen or the subject?

I will admit that the rise of an increasingly fascist state gives me pause though. Especially this week in the light of a president who pardoned war criminals.


Who pardoned what war criminals?

I agree provided the state is assiduous in policing those who have them against their criminal database.


And that would go back to my original point about a background check database. There would be nothing precluding someone with a CCW from having their record flagged.

I purchased a very nice Kimber Pro Carry .45 not long ago. When I bought it, I handed the dealer my CCW. He checked to make sure it was valid. It was, so he sold me the gun...


I assume you mean 48 hours form the completion of the background investigation.


Yes, which should take no longer than 48 hours...

I sill set aside the idea of a gasoline truck driver needing to arm himself as a bit of an overreaction even in those days but I would point out that a CCW would do an interstate truck driver little good because the license he holds would not cover all states.


Well, truck drivers were being killed for the gasoline they were hauling. Nice to see you weren't in favor of those folks being able to defend themselves.

As for interstate drivers, reciprocity is recognized in most states. Only the most liberal cesspool states have a problem with it. See the lavender states? Those are all of the states where someone with a Florida CCW can carry concealed:

Image

If you believe that magazine capacity is irrelevant you also understand that we soldiers, disagree with you. So does the US military which increased magazine capacity from 20 to 30. Some souls even taped two 20 round magazines together but I never did. (In those days you were smart to only load 18 rounds anyway because the piece of shit magazines were subject to jamming.


Your fatal mistake is in comparing everything to the military. Simmer down there, Patton, not everything can be compared to the military...

The Mini-14 is often referred to as a "ranch rifle".

Why?

Because its commonly used to shoot predators and varmints which target a ranch. Not much in the way of military operations going on there, but they're highly effective. As I've mentioned, though, nobody talks about banning those, but operationally they're identical to the AR-15.

There's only one variant of the Mini-14 which is select-fire (which is what a true assault rifle is), but it's never been made available to the public. If you go into your local gun dealer you cannot buy an "assault rifle" because the rifle you would be buying cannot be switched into and out of automatic fire.

But, all that aside, your chosen way to describe what you're like to see banned is pretty telling. You said "assault style rifle" as opposed to "assault rifle". "Style" is about appearance, and really nothing else, especially when you consider a comparison of the AR-15 and the Mini-14.

Style: "a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed."

You, and gun haters like you, don't like the AR-15 because you're afraid of its menacing appearance, and nothing else...
User avatar
By Drlee
#15049172
You, and gun haters like you, don't like the AR-15 because you're afraid of its menacing appearance, and nothing else...


What a fucking joke. I know you revel in painting me a "gun hater" even though I have shown you I am the opposite. But untruthfulness is the key trait of braggarts and bullies.

I don't dislike the AR-15. As a matter of fact I used to own one many years ago. I had one when I was stationed in the states. (My own, not my issued M-16.) It was fun, I thought then, to go to the firing range and rip off 10 or 20 rounds annoying all of the other shooters and spending money like a fool even though I reloaded for it. Then I came to realize what a piece of shit is was for any legitimate purpose other than amusement. And not very good for that. It was worthless for hunting and the worst possible choice for home defense. (Oh maybe a .25 pocket rocket is worse but just barely.)

I have come to realize though that in the wrong hands it is a threat to the public that goes beyond any special snowflakes need to play soldier or imagine himself leading a charge against the 1st Armored Division. Nope son, there is nothing about these weapons (and the Ruger for that matter) that justifies there being abroad in the land. Especially in the hands of blow-hard chickenhawks.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

Since you keep insisting on pretending that the I[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]