San Francisco council calls NRA 'domestic terrorist organisation

[ItsAllOursBoys]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

ultra violent leftist group?  How so?

Not enough space here to expound on all the evidence, but suffice to say, all Antifa has to do is label some person or group as "Nazis" or Nazi sympathizer (whether they're really Nazi's or not is irrelevant to Antifa) and all hell breaks loose, literally.....

 

I suspect you know how to use google but this should get you started....

 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/were-leftists-and-we-disavow-antifa/

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-09-05/understand-the-antifa-and-americas-history-of-violent-protests

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

 

https://quillette.com/2019/07/03/how-antifas-apologists-fell-in-love-with-street-violence/

 

https://www.luxediteur.com/antifa-history-and-politics-explained/

 

https://unherd.com/2019/07/antifas-attack-on-the-truth/

 

https://spectator.org/journalist-andy-ngo-attacked-by-antifa-at-portland-protest/

 

https://forward.com/opinion/428960/the-dayton-murderer-is-proof-we-need-to-take-left-wing-violence-seriously/

 

 

 

 

[BPA]

[stawns]

21 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

Not enough space here to expound on all the evidence, but suffice to say, all Antifa has to do is label some person or group as "Nazis" or Nazi sympathizer (whether they're really Nazi's or not is irrelevant to Antifa) and all hell breaks loose, literally.....

 

I suspect you know how to use google but this should get you started....

 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/were-leftists-and-we-disavow-antifa/

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-09-05/understand-the-antifa-and-americas-history-of-violent-protests

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

 

https://quillette.com/2019/07/03/how-antifas-apologists-fell-in-love-with-street-violence/

 

https://www.luxediteur.com/antifa-history-and-politics-explained/

 

https://unherd.com/2019/07/antifas-attack-on-the-truth/

 

https://spectator.org/journalist-andy-ngo-attacked-by-antifa-at-portland-protest/

 

https://forward.com/opinion/428960/the-dayton-murderer-is-proof-we-need-to-take-left-wing-violence-seriously/

 

 

 

 

your first link is the post millenial.........that pretty much throat punches any credibility you might have remotely had.  I'm still not seeing the "ultra violent incidents reported in these "articles"............articles which seem to be very pro white nationalist.

Edited September 6, 2019 by stawns

[ItsAllOursBoys]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

NRA does not support Gun Control and in its current form is indirectly supporting domestic terrorism with its lobbying .

 

Are you a member ?

No, I'm not a member, but I will stand with them and all other freedom-loving Americans to defend their right to personal freedom, liberty and protection.

 

The NRA does in fact support gun control measures. They draw a line in the sand when certain measures (more restrictive laws against law-abiding citizens to full-scale gun confiscations) are proposed.

 

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[inane]

1 minute ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

No, I'm not a member, but I will stand with them and all other freedom-loving Americans to defend their right to personal freedom, liberty and protection.

 

The NRA does in fact support gun control measures. They draw a line in the sand when certain measures (more restrictive laws against law-abiding citizens to full-scale gun confiscations) are proposed.

 

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you’re designing kids backpacks with bullet proof material and designing hallways in elementary schools with active shooter deterrent architecture I wonder who is free and protected. 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

your first link is the post millenial.........that pretty much throat punches any credibility you might have remotely had.

That my friend is called a genetic fallacy..... you dismiss the argument based on its origin, rather than any factual merit. 

[CBH1926]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

is he the reincarnation of Zepp? 

What happened to him?

[stawns]

5 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

That my friend is called a genetic fallacy..... you dismiss the argument based on its origin, rather than any factual merit. 

actually, I base it on the merits and reliability of the information, it's what I do for a living and I'm sorry, but using any of those "sources" as a basis for anything other than propaganda is laughable.

Edited September 6, 2019 by stawns

[HerrDrFunk]

3 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

What happened to him?

He periodically takes breaks. I'm sure he'll pop up again. 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

4 minutes ago, inane said:

When you’re designing kids backpacks with bullet proof material and designing hallways in elementary schools with active shooter deterrent architecture I wonder who is free and protected. 

who is free and protected? The millions upon millions of law-abiding citizens who obey the law - that's who.

 

The asinine attempts you mention only go to prove that its those who seek to disarm peaceful citizens and those who are subjected to such foolish schemes are the ones who aren't free or protected.  Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who give up essential liberty and freedom for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety".

 

 

[inane]

5 minutes ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

who is free and protected? The millions upon millions of law-abiding citizens who obey the law - that's who.

 

The asinine attempts you mention only go to prove that its those who seek to disarm peaceful citizens and those who are subjected to such foolish schemes are the ones who aren't free or protected.  Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who give up essential liberty and freedom for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety".

 

 

Ok bud. Your delusion that should the government actually try to enslave the population your ragtag group of armed rednecks could do anything about it is cute, and hardly worth children having active shooter drills in their 2nd grade classroom. 

 

 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

actually, I base it on the merits and reliability of the information, it's what I do for a living and I'm sorry, but using any of those "sources" as a basis for anything other than propaganda is laughable.

By your logic then, I can arbitrarily reject whatever you say from here on because "stawns" is not a source I agree with? Such is akin to avoiding CNN or Fox-News just because they don't represent the preferred ideology or worldview.  How long have you been the arbitrator and gatekeeper of what's to be considered  meritorious or a reliable source of information?

 

You rejected an argument based solely on the source, not any thought or merit of the information? Did you actually open up the sources, read the articles and articulate a thoughtful, intelligent response?  I think we both know the answer to that.

 

If such asinine philosophy fuels your career, I don't think you have much of a future ahead of you.

[Lancaster]

2 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Thank you! (sincerely)

 

I'm not entirely sure how katanas and ninja stars are relevant. We have a ton of weebo's over in North America who love them some ninja stars and katanas as well; yet I would have to wager the rates of crimes committed using them pale in comparison to gun crime stats. 

 

As I specifically said "gun crime", I wouldn't lump suicides in with mass shootings and gang activities. However, studies in Japan have shown that when you make it even that much harder to commit suicide (like putting up a fence on a bridge people would jump from), it can drastically impact suicide rates in a positive way. While there are definitely people who wish to end their lives, no matter what, a lot of suicides and suicide attempts boil down to a momentary whims and access to a convenient method...like having a gun in your house. 

 

Can you find my any stats on how many people are saved each year by someone being armed?

 

As for the Swiss, I would wager the extensive amount of training each person who is armed by the government gets plays a part in their low gun crime rates. 

As I get lots of Japan news, I always get stories of students leaping off building, in front of trains, and even my wife's cousin disappearing into the woods, etc.  

Most has to do with bully, too much expectation from work, etc.  Considering most people take the trains everyday in Japan, it's probably way easier and perhaps less painful to jump on the tracks.....

 

As for the CDC stats, I'm just going to link to this article on Forbes.  Probably more details on the actual CDC website, but I found it cumbersome to navigate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#70d8ca1d299a

But regardless what the exact numbers are, I find it way more trouble that one has to even use a firearm to defend themselves.  

 

As for training, I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should be trains with it.  Probably not mandatory, but very very highly recommended with incentives (register for a class and get 10% discount next purchase of ammo or something).  

[stawns]

1 hour ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

By your logic then, I can arbitrarily reject whatever you say from here on because "stawns" is not a source I agree with? Such is akin to avoiding CNN or Fox-News just because they don't represent the preferred ideology or worldview.  How long have you been the arbitrator and gatekeeper of what's to be considered  meritorious or a reliable source of information?

 

You rejected an argument based solely on the source, not any thought or merit of the information? Did you actually open up the sources, read the articles and articulate a thoughtful, intelligent response?  I think we both know the answer to that.

 

If such asinine philosophy fuels your career, I don't think you have much of a future ahead of you.

I absolutely read them.........almost all opinion articles, leaning heavily toward white nationalist rhetoric and not really any mention of the "violent actions" of antifa, aside from the sucker punch of a virulent, unabashed neo nazi.

 

Propaganda, pure and simple.

 

If it's not a source with legitimate journalistic credentials and first hand sources, it's not something you should he using as a base for your argument.

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

Not enough space here to expound on all the evidence, but suffice to say, all Antifa has to do is label some person or group as "Nazis" or Nazi sympathizer (whether they're really Nazi's or not is irrelevant to Antifa) and all hell breaks loose, literally.....

 

I suspect you know how to use google but this should get you started....

 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/were-leftists-and-we-disavow-antifa/

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-09-05/understand-the-antifa-and-americas-history-of-violent-protests

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

 

https://quillette.com/2019/07/03/how-antifas-apologists-fell-in-love-with-street-violence/

 

https://www.luxediteur.com/antifa-history-and-politics-explained/

 

https://unherd.com/2019/07/antifas-attack-on-the-truth/

 

https://spectator.org/journalist-andy-ngo-attacked-by-antifa-at-portland-protest/

 

https://forward.com/opinion/428960/the-dayton-murderer-is-proof-we-need-to-take-left-wing-violence-seriously/

 

 

 

 

From reverse to top.

 

1.  Is an opinion column in a jewish publication which has called for the removal pf Palestinians from the "homeland"

2.  Is a blog written by a person who is part of an online publication that has a running theme called "california watch" which is based around the evils of sanctuary cities and the "demise of the leftist elite" that are ruining the state

3.  Is a piece written to support far right conservative reporter Ngo who has been video taped numerous times antagonizing and "faking" attacks by the left, but who also due to his actions has in fact been attacked by protestors when he took things too far.  It is effectively supporting a victim of his own making.

4.  Is actually a french canadian publication that speaks very plainly that the fast majority of AntiFa members are not violent and in support of protesting the rise of white nationalism and anti semitism.  it also goes on to state that the alternative is to allow nationalism and anti semitism to grow unchallenged.

5.  Calls out the violent ultra leftists that are Anti-Fa and rightfully so, but glaringly omits the fact that the far right nationalist groups that opposed them in their actions were also violent and quite at fault.  Completely omitting the happy truck loads that descended on Portland with the sole aim of antagonizing and counter protesting a peaceful demonstration against anti fascism.  but also rightfully pointing out that the Black Bloc and most violent AntiFa members are also called out by those on the left

6.  Speaks of the rise of AntiFa groups world wide from Spain and Germany in the 30s to now and indicates that the ultra violent threats and rhetoric as well as the seeming acceptance and acknowledgement of nationalist and racist groups would result in an equal counter of people who felt and were threatened by the very existence of these far right groups.

7.  Is an opinion piece which doesn't speak good or ill of AntiFa but suggests a better understanding of them and their leadership as it was is needed.

8.  Rightfully calls out the violence of the black bloc and most virulent antifa members knowing that .1% does not speak for the majority through words or actions.  But still rightfully states that anti fascism is not a movement but should be a way of life.

 

While I don't normally call in to question anyone's source materials, i truly do wish people would stop passing off opinion columns, far right blogs or material in which they've not even read more than the title of; as valid material for their arguments.

[kingofsurrey]

4 hours ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

No, I'm not a member, but I will stand with them and all other freedom-loving Americans to defend their right to personal freedom, liberty and protection.

 

The NRA does in fact support gun control measures. They draw a line in the sand when certain measures (more restrictive laws against law-abiding citizens to full-scale gun confiscations) are proposed.

 

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You stand up for mass murder and random  domestic shootings....   Well done sir. 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by kingofsurrey

[Captain Canuck #12]

2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

You stand up for mass murder and random  domestic shootings....   Well done sir. 

 

It's their legitimate right for any citizen to have free access to the means to commit mass shootings and blow their own children's brain out in large numbers, isn't it?  How how dare you question that premise sir!!  Are you some kind of Communist?

[ItsAllOursBoys]

4 hours ago, stawns said:

I absolutely read them.........almost all opinion articles, leaning heavily toward white nationalist rhetoric and not really any mention of the "violent actions" of antifa, aside from the sucker punch of a virulent, unabashed neo nazi.

 

Propaganda, pure and simple.

 

If it's not a source with legitimate journalistic credentials and first hand sources, it's not something you should he using as a base for your argument.

First, the article "Antifa's attack on the truth" was written by a first-hand (left-wing) source who gave details of their direct knowledge of the violent extremism of Antifa. Second, the Lux article was spoken by a Dartmouth College historian who is quite the Antifa apologist. Third, the article "Understanding the Antifa" was also written by someone sypathetic to Antifa's goals and agenda.

 

For the sake of space, I won't highlight the other articles that you "absolutely read." Suffice to say, the legitimate first-hand source who wrote the first article and the interviews with Antifa sympathizers in the next two, seriously calls into question your account of giving intelligent consideration to the articles.

 

Thirdly, it should be noted that your comments are "opinions" and "not a source with legitimate journalistic credentials" so perhaps I should have just passed over your comment, rejecting them as mere rhetoric and propaganda from a race-baiting Antifa sympathizer? Or should I have taken time to seriously consider your position?

 

I believe your propaganda comments tell us all we need to know....

[ItsAllOursBoys]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

From reverse to top.

 

1.  Is an opinion column in a jewish publication which has called for the removal pf Palestinians from the "homeland"

2.  Is a blog written by a person who is part of an online publication that has a running theme called "california watch" which is based around the evils of sanctuary cities and the "demise of the leftist elite" that are ruining the state

3.  Is a piece written to support far right conservative reporter Ngo who has been video taped numerous times antagonizing and "faking" attacks by the left, but who also due to his actions has in fact been attacked by protestors when he took things too far.  It is effectively supporting a victim of his own making.

4.  Is actually a french canadian publication that speaks very plainly that the fast majority of AntiFa members are not violent and in support of protesting the rise of white nationalism and anti semitism.  it also goes on to state that the alternative is to allow nationalism and anti semitism to grow unchallenged.

5.  Calls out the violent ultra leftists that are Anti-Fa and rightfully so, but glaringly omits the fact that the far right nationalist groups that opposed them in their actions were also violent and quite at fault.  Completely omitting the happy truck loads that descended on Portland with the sole aim of antagonizing and counter protesting a peaceful demonstration against anti fascism.  but also rightfully pointing out that the Black Bloc and most violent AntiFa members are also called out by those on the left

6.  Speaks of the rise of AntiFa groups world wide from Spain and Germany in the 30s to now and indicates that the ultra violent threats and rhetoric as well as the seeming acceptance and acknowledgement of nationalist and racist groups would result in an equal counter of people who felt and were threatened by the very existence of these far right groups.

7.  Is an opinion piece which doesn't speak good or ill of AntiFa but suggests a better understanding of them and their leadership as it was is needed.

8.  Rightfully calls out the violence of the black bloc and most virulent antifa members knowing that .1% does not speak for the majority through words or actions.  But still rightfully states that anti fascism is not a movement but should be a way of life.

 

While I don't normally call in to question anyone's source materials, i truly do wish people would stop passing off opinion columns, far right blogs or material in which they've not even read more than the title of; as valid material for their arguments.

Although I disagree with some of your assumptions, good on you for actually taking the time to read and comment on them.

 

"Opinion columns" aren't inherently untrustworthy or invalid source material. No matter what your politics or ideology is, all reporting, journalism, editors, newspapers etc.. both online and off are in some way biased in their reporting. Even your post is an expression of your opinion - it is an opinion piece. As such, should we now reject is invalid or should we assign a validity to your opinion that we shouldn't afford the reference material I posted?

 

Another thing I found troubling about some of the article themes you describe, the seeming assumption is that most groups who stand against Antifa or at least are right of them on the political spectrum are equivalent to Nazi's, far right extremists or Nazi sympathizers. You also seem to outright reject certain sources based solely on their ideological or political beliefs. That being said;

1. Your point here is a genetic fallacy. It dismisses the argument based on its source or origin, rather than the fallacy of its argument.

2. Same as 1.

3. Same as 1 & 2. You claim Ngo (who btw isn't white, but Asian) deserved the beating he got because he pushed things too far. I don't know about any of these other incidents you claim (though I would actually like to read/see the evidence for your claim), but even left-wing anti-fascist writers in  article #8 (We're leftists and we disavow Antifa) rightly claim that day in Portland, Ngo was not antagonizing anyone, but merely attempting to report the news when he was attacked.

4. I quoted this article because the historian Mark Bray is straightforward about Antifa's willingness to use of violence to further their goals if they can't achieve them any other way. He says; "They (Antifa) also see self-defense as a preemptive measure: They refuse to give white supremacists and fascists the benefit of the doubt that their organizing will not at some point result in attacks on vulnerable communities. If necessary, if other methods of stopping them do not work, then confronting them and forcing them to stop is part of the repertoire."

 

First, It's national socialism that was the bedrock and foundation of Nazism, not nationalism. Secondly, since Antifa labels almost every group or everyone who disagrees with them as a Nazi or Far-right (case in point, Milo), then those who refuse to be intimidated into subjection or silent is fair game for "confronting them and forcing them to stop". As the authors in "We're leftists and we disavow Antifa state: "The issue with Antifa is that they haven’t a clue what actual fascism is. They employ the term to casually slander those they intend to dismiss..."   

 

5. I agree 1000% that the far right Fascists are equally violent. From a historical perspective, from the 1930's up through the communists and fascists of WWII, both groups were bitter enemies and used the same tactics against each other and everyone else that disagreed with them. That bitter fight continues today vicariously through the fascists and Antifa. Both groups have the same agenda of control, they're just battling it out to see who will do the controlling.

6. I would also agree but apparently to each opposing sword belongs the just cause. Both groups believe their cause is just, both want to control, both want to determine what can/cant be said and the punishment for those who break the rules. There's big money behind both these groups so I would venture to say that those who wish to control are themselves controlled.

7. I wouldn't say the piece is neutral when the author states that Antifa's "ideas" are more "honorable than those of the groups they oppose". The reason I referenced this article was that it, like a few others I referenced highlight the violence tendencies of Antifa and their willingness to resort to violence if they don't get their way.  When the author says "Many of the antifa reject nonviolence as a moral commitment...." its shows that it's the "many" who most frequently spoil it for the few

8. No where in the article do the authors state or give the impression that those in Antifa who resort to violence and intimidation only make up .1% of the group as a whole. If anything, Antifa makes up .1% of the left wing. I'm in full agreement that anti-fascism should be a way of life. However, from the tone of the article, the out right disavowing of Antifa and the links they provide for further investigation and research into Antifa creating a culture of violence, it's quite evident that they intended to portray Antifa as a violent nefarious group that needs to be put down.

 

 

 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

4 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

You stand up for mass murder and random  domestic shootings....   Well done sir.