San Francisco council calls NRA 'domestic terrorist organisation

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

It's the only point he has.  Push the most ridiculous and extreme narrative that is completely incorrect and wrong and use that as a sounding board.

is he the reincarnation of Zepp? 

[inane]

44 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Of course, lets completely ignore the original intent to murder another person.  

You are too focused on the "how?", rather than the real issue, the "why?"

 

Why does Japan has a lower crime rate?  Why does Japan has lower theft?  Why is the assault rate lower in Japan?  Why aren't murders as prevalent compared to the US?

Could it be they don't have as much societal flaws like the US?  Maybe they have a higher rate of "normal" family units?  Perhaps their education is more streamlined?  Maybe school provide balanced diet lunches to children during their most developmentally sensitive stage?  Maybe the Japanese are more spiritual compared to Americans?  They have more accessibility to social programs and health care resources?  That morality and manners are taught and ingrained from a young age?

 

But no... let's not really investigate or do any critical thinking, just "ban guns", because that's the lowest hanging fruit to grab for some of those "feel good" "faux moral superiority" points.  

 

42 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I've literally never said that.  

 

I want gun reform so that the US has similar gun laws to Canada. Why is that so hard to understand? I've told you that multiple times before now. 

Funny that is point is no investigation or critical thinking then he proceeds to make a sweeping extreme generalization.

 

Hmm.

[stawns]

12 hours ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

And Democrat/Socialist billionaire George Soros and major players in the Democrat party fund and support the "ultra-violent leftist group" Antifa....

 

https://capitalresearch.org/article/origins-of-antifa/

 

Would rather support the NRA and have a gun to protect myself and my family than to be left defenseless against useful idiots - the leftists wanna-be thugs roaming the streets, whoring themselves out to do the dirty work of their political pimps.

ultra violent leftist group?  How so?

[stawns]

2 hours ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

That sir is a red-herring. Lower gun crime statistics in those countries is due to a variety of issues. With the exception of Britain, establishment and access to good mental health programs, respect for authority, a good moral compass and other cultural differences all contribute to lower gun crime. Its not just the strict gun laws themselves.

 

But the laws of other countries is really secondary. My point still stands..... Historically speaking, as a nation moves from personal liberty and freedom to totalitarianism (Soviet Russia, 1938 Germany, 1944 Eastern Block Countries, 1959 Cuba), one of the final steps is repressive or complete gun control.

I agree with the bolded part, but no one should cry about strict control of weapons made soley for the purpose of killing human beings.  Every good point you could possibly make becomes meaningless after that.  I'm so sick of the "the government is going to become authoritarian if they take away our guns" argument.  It's stupid, and it's stupid people who believe it.

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

ultra violent leftist group?  How so?

has there ever been an "ultra violent" act in the US by an Antifa group? I'm assuming "ultra violent" means more than shouting down a neo-nazi. 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

is he the reincarnation of Zepp? 

Jimmy, do you miss someone starting every post he responded to you with your first name, Jimmy?

 

I always noticed that. I think it was a attempt to maintain your respect and an effort to control your responses/ potential opinion. It's very alpha/business-y behaviour. I find those tricks amusing. . Don't wear logo's, don't cross your arms in front of you, if you put your hands in your pockets make sure your thumbs are out, speak in a low calm voice ,  use peoples names, stand up straight, look them in the eyes, firm handshake.....there's lots.

It's old school thinking. 

[Lancaster]

5 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Sure, but seriously, cut that $&!# out. Every time we have a debate about guns, you say my solution is "ban guns"; which I've never advocated. 

 

Japan does have better social programs than the US. The US would be better off if its citizens had access to similar ones. However, as we've already discussed, you think all the US needs is better social programs while I say the answer is better social programs in conjunction with stricter gun laws. It's almost as if countries, like Japan, that have a good social safety net and strict gun laws don't see a whole lot of gun crime. Which kind of proves my point. 

My apologies for lumping you with the "ban all guns" group.  

 

Japan doesn't have the same amount of crime because it's culturally and socio-economically different from the US.  Katanas and ninjas stars (btw considered as a prohibitive weapon in Canada) are prevalent in Japan, but you rarely hear about people using them as a weapon against others.  It's just something they don't do.  

 

"Gun crimes" has many different subsets.  From the top of my head:  Mass shootings, gang activities, suicides, everything else

For mass shootings:  it's true that mass shootings make headline, but still a small fraction of a percentage.  What direct individuals to commit such crime?  Some suffer from certain mental defects and are on medication which may contribute to adverse behaviour.  Can placing regulations on those classified as mentally unstable make a difference?  Of course, but what recourse do those people have?  Is their condition reversible?  Can they relapse?  Will a person deemed "mentally ill" at 18 be forever barred from acquiring firearms, even though that person is now 40+ and living the regular life with job, wife, kids without any issues since age 18?  If there are rules to target those people, they really have to make sure there is some strong fail-safe options to get out of it.

 

Gang activities:  This is more on enforcement and the justice department.  Criminals will get guns regardless of rules and regulations in place.  The yakuza in Japan has guns.... so if they get their hands on them, most likely other criminal groups can too.  But this area usually involves drugs, smuggling and other vices.  Seems to be more of a societal problem, and thus societal change should be made.  The ease or difficulty in acquiring firearm doesn't play much of a role regarding this issue.  Most gangbangers in Canada probably aren't carrying their ATT and RPAL licenses when they are shooting their rivals... chances are the guns are illegally acquired to begin with.

 

Suicides:  

Other countries has higher suicide rates than the US, like Japan and South Korea, both don't have any guns.  Societal issue relating to work/life balance, mental health, etc.  More or less guns wouldn't really make any significant difference.

 

Everything else: 

This is for cases where guns are used during to violent behaviours.  Fights, road rage, home invasion, etc... all with the end result of having a firearm used, this section can be argued, but this is still uncommon.  If one wants to use these numbers to justify limitations to gun ownership, then it's fair to put into accounts the numbers from the CDC of lives protected due to the possession of a firearm.  

 

 

Could stronger gun regulations work?  It's possible.... but that would be doing things backwards.  Would be more beneficial to fix the flaws of society rather than going after rights (because once given up, they'll never come back).  The Swiss (at least before) made it work somehow.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Jimmy, do you miss someone starting every post he responded to you with your first name, Jimmy?

 

I always noticed that. I think it was a attempt to maintain your respect and an effort to control your responses/ potential opinion. It's very alpha/business-y behaviour. I find those tricks amusing. . Don't wear logo's, don't cross your arms in front of you, if you put your hands in your pockets make sure your thumbs are out, speak in a low calm voice ,  use peoples names, stand up straight, look them in the eyes, firm handshake.....there's lots.

It's old school thinking. 

I miss it a little. 

 

I was fine with him up to the point where he pulled back the curtain a little too far and showed some pretty disturbing ideas on race. 

 

The office antics are pretty funny, I do have a very good approach with guys like that when they get pushy, which works unfailingly well. I just don't say anything. I don't bite on it tall. I can sit in a meeting and say nothing and even refuse to shake someones hand thats being an a-hole. It pulls the rug out right from under them, usually they just move on. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

13 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Would be more beneficial to fix the flaws of society rather than going after rights (because once given up, they'll never come back).  The Swiss (at least before) made it work somehow.

No money for that.  Need the funds to build the wall to keep the bad hombres out....

 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by NewbieCanuckFan

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I miss it a little. 

 

I was fine with him up to the point where he pulled back the curtain a little too far and showed some pretty disturbing ideas on race. 

 

The office antics are pretty funny, I do have a very good approach with guys like that when they get pushy, which works unfailingly well. I just don't say anything. I don't bite on it tall. I can sit in a meeting and say nothing and even refuse to shake someones hand thats being an a-hole. It pulls the rug out right from under them, usually they just move on. 

Agree on all points. I liked reading Rob but his cup seemed to overflow a bit too much. Then the pretext convo's to what I think was leading to a nationalism stance, via racism doesn't exist idea, is where it fell off for me. 

 

Yeah, I'm at a pretty progressive company and our HO is made up of all sorts. I don't think you can fake/learn your aplha-ness as much anymore. Real recognises real these days and people get called out for it. All the bravado and firm handshakes don't matter if the results are not there. In fact if you are not a demonstrative leader in today's world you'll have an up hill battle. 

[riffraff]

50 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Agree on all points. I liked reading Rob but his cup seemed to overflow a bit too much. Then the pretext convo's to what I think was leading to a nationalism stance, via racism doesn't exist idea, is where it fell off for me. 

 

Yeah, I'm at a pretty progressive company and our HO is made up of all sorts. I don't think you can fake/learn your aplha-ness as much anymore. Real recognises real these days and people get called out for it. All the bravado and firm handshakes don't matter if the results are not there. In fact if you are not a demonstrative leader in today's world you'll have an up hill battle. 

Looking at you Canada.

[bishopshodan]

11 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Looking at you Canada.

[riffraff]

There is something to be said about some basic old school mannerisms.  I’m biased because I consider myself old school with - with an open mind....but I agree it’s annoying when it’s obvious someone has read some sort of alpha self help to world domination book and tried to get all voicey body posture on you.

 

ill give a pass on a lame fish handshake but if you don’t look me in the eye when it’s time for real talk I’ll by judging you behind said eyes.  Fair warning cdc.

Edited September 5, 2019 by riffraff

[ItsAllOursBoys]

11 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The NRA was created to teach people how to use guns responsibly post civil war.  It had nothing to do with "personal freedoms" or civil liberties until the 70s

 

The NRA then morphed in to the largest and most successful lobby group in Washington, the phrase "follow the money" barely preceded them.  As we all know money greases wheels and lobbyists have more power in Washington than politicians we know what that means.

 

As for "as a nation moves from x to y" you're wrong.  It starts with an election or grab at power and ends with someone desperate to cling to power.  Removing guns has never and will never be the issue.  Because at no point in time would Heinz's ruger have ever held off the gd weirmacht just like billy jo bobs .30 would hold off any us police or military force...

 

As an after thought look at what is and has been happening in America since 2001.  How many freedoms have been lost?  The big brother state is well underway and at no point in time has anyones guns ever been at risk.  In fact the gun fans are currently pushing for more losses of personal freedoms whether they know it or not by supporting governments that keep taking power and money from the people and giving it to the elite few.  But that's nothing like a move towards totalitarianism because it's called a capitalist democracy right?

1st bold: Due to heavy losses during the Civil War, the NRA was created to primarily teach people to shoot more "scientifically" ie: accurately. It was to teach the Union army to defend themselves more efficiency. It had everything to do with the personal freedom - theirs and their families.

 

2nd bold: "Elections" are just a game founded on and ruled by Hegelian Dialectic processes. For the most part, the candidates are in cahoots with and/or useful dupes and puppets for those wielding the real swords of power. No one gets to "cling to power" without the support of their handlers. Guns in the hands of the common people, well that's a different story. The people with the guns are the real threat to their control. 

 

3rd bold: If the powers that be marched in and attempted to confiscate all weapons at once, there would be such an uprising, civil war would ensue. So they do it through social engineering, peer pressure and education. Think frog in the water here- if you want to cook a frog, you don't throw it alive into a pot of boiling water as it will attempt to jump out. You slowly turn the heat up, little by little and it will stay in the pot and die. It was Hillary Clinton that once said..."you should NEVER let a good crisis go to waste". With each mass shooting, the powers that be go into overdrive to "educate" (:ie brainwash) the sheeple on why giving up their freedom, their security and their guns is a good thing.

 

4th bold: I 100% agree with you about the wealth and control of the elites. However, these "gun fans" can be right for all the wrong reasons and utilize poor methods to gain what is right.

[ItsAllOursBoys]

4 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

So don't enact gun control laws in countries with totalitarian governments. Boom. 

once the new gun control law is created to justify oppressive totalitarian policies, governments and their handlers keep them in place in order to keep the sheeple from uprising and becoming any real legitimate threat to their power. Boom

[HerrDrFunk]

1 minute ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

once the new gun control law is created to justify oppressive totalitarian policies, governments and their handlers keep them in place in order to keep the sheeple from uprising and becoming any real legitimate threat to their power. Boom

Lol, "sheeple". 

[inane]

1 minute ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

once the new gun control law is created to justify oppressive totalitarian policies, governments and their handlers keep them in place in order to keep the sheeple from uprising and becoming any real legitimate threat to their power. Boom

So all the countries with gun control laws are just uprisings waiting to happen? 

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, ItsAllOursBoys said:

That's a false equivalency if there ever was one. Such an argument shows a basic misunderstanding of the nature of both the NRA and Antifa.

 

The NRA as an organization wasn't birthed out of death and violence, but support for the individual freedom of peaceful, law-abiding citizens.  Unlike Antifa, the socialist/communist para-military organization that was specifically created for the purpose of using fear, intimidation and violence to create anarchy and overthrow society. Antifa claims to be anti-fascist, yet they use the exact same tactics as fascists do in order to control those they subjugate and intimidate.

 

The NRA's support for the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with some idiot shooting up a mall or theater. Its a false narrative and straw-man argument to suggest that the NRA is knowingly and willingly supporting and/or putting guns into the hands of mentally deranged individuals. Close loopholes in the law? That's a discussion they can have but 100% of law abiding individuals always obey the law. 

 

A good starting place would be to enforce the laws already on the books. We're all for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally deranged individuals, but infringing on the personal freedom and rights of millions and millions of law-abiding Americans who own guns because isn't away to do it. If the.01 of 1% that are mentally deranged decide to break the law, another law isn't going to prevent them from acts of violence and murder. 

 

Historically speaking, as a nation moves from personal liberty and freedom to totalitarianism (Soviet Russia, 1938 Germany, 1944 Eastern Block Countries, 1959 Cuba), one of the final steps is repressive or complete gun control - THAT sir, is something that is really amazing!

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

 

Are you a member ?

[JM_]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The NRA was created to teach people how to use guns responsibly post civil war.  It had nothing to do with "personal freedoms" or civil liberties until the 70s

apparently its not going well 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

My apologies for lumping you with the "ban all guns" group.  

Thank you! (sincerely)

 

2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Japan doesn't have the same amount of crime because it's culturally and socio-economically different from the US.  Katanas and ninjas stars (btw considered as a prohibitive weapon in Canada) are prevalent in Japan, but you rarely hear about people using them as a weapon against others.  It's just something they don't do.  

 

"Gun crimes" has many different subsets.  From the top of my head:  Mass shootings, gang activities, suicides, everything else

For mass shootings:  it's true that mass shootings make headline, but still a small fraction of a percentage.  What direct individuals to commit such crime?  Some suffer from certain mental defects and are on medication which may contribute to adverse behaviour.  Can placing regulations on those classified as mentally unstable make a difference?  Of course, but what recourse do those people have?  Is their condition reversible?  Can they relapse?  Will a person deemed "mentally ill" at 18 be forever barred from acquiring firearms, even though that person is now 40+ and living the regular life with job, wife, kids without any issues since age 18?  If there are rules to target those people, they really have to make sure there is some strong fail-safe options to get out of it.

 

Gang activities:  This is more on enforcement and the justice department.  Criminals will get guns regardless of rules and regulations in place.  The yakuza in Japan has guns.... so if they get their hands on them, most likely other criminal groups can too.  But this area usually involves drugs, smuggling and other vices.  Seems to be more of a societal problem, and thus societal change should be made.  The ease or difficulty in acquiring firearm doesn't play much of a role regarding this issue.  Most gangbangers in Canada probably aren't carrying their ATT and RPAL licenses when they are shooting their rivals... chances are the guns are illegally acquired to begin with.

 

Suicides:  

Other countries has higher suicide rates than the US, like Japan and South Korea, both don't have any guns.  Societal issue relating to work/life balance, mental health, etc.  More or less guns wouldn't really make any significant difference.

 

Everything else: 

This is for cases where guns are used during to violent behaviours.  Fights, road rage, home invasion, etc... all with the end result of having a firearm used, this section can be argued, but this is still uncommon.  If one wants to use these numbers to justify limitations to gun ownership, then it's fair to put into accounts the numbers from the CDC of lives protected due to the possession of a firearm.  

 

 

Could stronger gun regulations work?  It's possible.... but that would be doing things backwards.  Would be more beneficial to fix the flaws of society rather than going after rights (because once given up, they'll never come back).  The Swiss (at least before) made it work somehow.

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.