19
   

Another Devastating School Shooting: Uvalde, Texas

 
 
engineer
 
  6  
Wed 22 Jun, 2022 12:28 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Assault weapons could be useful to citizens in situations that really might occur, such as a home invasion or to rebel against a dictatorial government.

Experts in firearms are pretty much in agreement that a weapon that shoots through the target, then through the adjacent wall and into the next room are not appropriate for self defense during a home invasion. And it's an extremist fantasy that people are going to rise up against a tyrannical government to defend the constitution.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Wed 22 Jun, 2022 01:06 pm
@engineer,
Especially since the wouldbe tyrant we narrkwly escaped from withbhis false election win claims is rhe one who had all ghe gjn loonies backing him. And is ztill trying tonpjll off a coup.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -4  
Thu 23 Jun, 2022 11:00 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

And it's an extremist fantasy that people are going to rise up against a tyrannical government to defend the constitution.


Why do you think that?
glitterbag
 
  5  
Thu 23 Jun, 2022 11:17 pm
@McGentrix,
Maybe because we can still vote, unless of course the far fringes believe we need a special dispensation, disallow mail voting, start manning voting sites to make sure 'creepy' people don't get to vote, or man voting sites to question voters about their patriotic values.......or anything else to curtail 'voters' that others don't like from voting.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Thu 23 Jun, 2022 11:21 pm
@glitterbag,
That's not the discussion. Are you not paying attention to the conversation? It was a statement and a question about the statement and you are rambling on about voting.
hightor
 
  3  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 03:25 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
That's not the discussion.

Wasn't this the statement?
engineer wrote:
And it's an extremist fantasy that people are going to rise up against a tyrannical government to defend the constitution.

Your reply:
Quote:
Why do you think that?

And this was the response:
glitterbag wrote:
Maybe because we can still vote, unless of course the far fringes believe we need a special dispensation, disallow mail voting, start manning voting sites to make sure 'creepy' people don't get to vote, or man voting sites to question voters about their patriotic values.......or anything else to curtail 'voters' that others don't like from voting.

This is plainly a topical response to a statement and answers your question; did you not understand that? Here's a clue – you asked "why?" and glitterbag's response answered "because". Are you not paying attention to the conversation? Historically, political activity – organizing, campaigning, and voting – has provided an alternative to armed rebellion and has been an effective counter to authoritarian rule.
hightor
 
  2  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 05:46 am
The Problem Is Gun Culture, Not SCOTUS

A win in the Supreme Court for the American right to threaten one another in public

Tom Nichols wrote:
I used to think of myself as a gun-control conservative—I supported both the right to own firearms and the interest of the state to limit that right—but America’s gun culture isn’t about rights. It’s about performative insecurity.

Big Iron

Back in 1959, the country singer Marty Robbins wrote a ballad about a murderous outlaw who met his well-deserved end at the hands of a handsome young Arizona Ranger who was carrying the “Big Iron on his hip.” (The song was supposedly inspired by a weapon Robbins saw in a shop, but there is some question about whether the Big Iron was a real gun.)

It’s a great song. But it wasn’t supposed to be a guide to life in modern America.

I don’t have the energy or expertise to debate whether the Supreme Court should have taken on the case of a New York State law that limited the ability to carry weapons around in public. Honestly, I just assume that many declines in the quality of American life for the foreseeable future will be announced with “In a 6–3 decision …” Elections have consequences, and with the current composition of the Court, this decision was inevitable.

The problem is not the Court’s decision. The problem is an adolescent, drama-laden gun culture, a romance with weapons that became extreme only in the past quarter century.

It didn’t used to be this way. I grew up around guns; my father had been a police officer, and we had two of them. My older half-brother, who lived a few streets away, was a police officer. Our next-door neighbor was a police officer. My hometown was a military town, and almost all of the men I knew were veterans who owned weapons and knew how to handle them. (There were some female veterans too. My mother, for one.)

What I remember about guns is that I remember almost nothing about guns. People owned them; they didn’t talk about them. They didn’t cover their cars in bumper stickers about them, they didn’t fly flags about them, they didn’t pose for dumb pictures with them. (I’ll plead one personal exemption: When I was a little boy, relatives in Greece once posed me in a Greek Evzone-soldier costume with my uncle’s hunting shotgun. I could barely lift it.)

Today, there is a neediness in the gun culture that speaks to deep insecurities among a certain kind of American citizen. The gun owners I knew—cops, veterans, hunters, sportsmen—owned guns as part of their life, sometimes as tools, sometimes for recreation. Gun ownership was not the central and defining feature of their life.

Don’t take my word for it that things have changed. Here’s Ryan Busse, a former gun-company executive who has now taken on his former industry, talking about the day someone showed up to a hunting party with an AR-15:

The unwritten rules of decency were enforced by firearm-industry leaders … I witnessed how this worked many times, including one occasion when a young writer brought his own AR-15 to a hunting event I was hosting in 2004. The senior figures there responded immediately. “That’s not the kind of thing we want to be promoting,” they said. The newcomer was shamed into locking the gun up for the rest of the event.

This kind of affirmation of cultural norms can be a lot more powerful than any law, and I suspect that the gun-culture extremists know it. They head off expressions of this kind of social disapproval by being aggressive and performative, daring anyone to criticize them for feeling the need to be armed while getting milk and eggs at the supermarket.

I have always trusted my fellow citizens with weapons. Now the most vocal advocates for unfettered gun ownership are men sitting in their cars in sunglasses and baseball caps, recording themselves as they dump unhinged rants into their phones about their rights and conspiracies and socialism.

The Supreme Court has now affirmed that all these guys can be the handsome ranger with the Big Iron on their hip. You can be angry with the Court for furthering and enabling this weirdness, but it’s not the Court’s fault. It is, as usual, our fault, as voters and citizens, for tolerating a culture that is endangering our fellow Americans instead of insisting that all of us exercise our constitutional rights like responsible adults.

theatlantic

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/k7_YCUu2myjyp7wMtLT_yDn3qDE=/1x285:5478x3366/976x549/media/img/mt/2022/06/opencarry_image/original.jpg
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 09:38 am
@hightor,
So Glitterbag knows Engineers thoughts and can speak for him? Interesting.

Way to be the internet White Knight. It's a shame that you feel you need to speak for others.
hightor
 
  2  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 09:58 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
So Glitterbag knows Engineers thoughts and can speak for him?


It's an open forum. People respond to open questions all the time. I had assumed the thoughts belonged to glitterbag; why did you think she was answering for engineer?

Quote:
It's a shame that you feel you need to speak for others.


Your reply to her was such an inept attempt to hold someone's feet to the fire that it invited critical commentary. Try analyzing a question and posting a pertinent response instead of using the forum to insult your imagined political foes.

McGentrix
 
  -1  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 10:04 am
@hightor,
I asked a specific question to a specific person. Obviously I can't stop other's from sharing their opinion about anything and I usually let it slide.

But I find that specific discussion interesting and I hope to receive an answer about it instead some lame assed reply from others not about something else...

We don't currently live under a tyrannical government and I doubt we ever do. But, should it ever come to that, I think the topic deserves exploration.
hightor
 
  4  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 10:12 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Obviously I can't stop other's from sharing their opinion about anything and I usually let it slide.


Oh...first it was someone trying channel engineer's thoughts, and now it's "other's sharing their opinion"!

Quote:
But, should it ever come to that, I think the topic deserves exploration.

But only between you and engineer?
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 10:28 am
@hightor,
So, you just want to argue then? You've really added nothing of substance in the discussion. Is that typical of you these days?
hightor
 
  2  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 10:40 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
So, you just want to argue then?

So, you just want to continue criticizing other people's posts instead of presenting a solid case for your opinion?

Quote:
You've really added nothing of substance in the discussion.

And neither have you. In addition, when someone else tried to join the discussion you dismissed her as speaking for someone else.

Quote:
Is that typical of you these days?

No, usually I restrict my contributions to posting articles I find online. I made an exception in your case.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 10:48 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

it's an extremist fantasy that people are going to rise up against a tyrannical government to defend the constitution.


engineer,
why do YOU feel that this is a fantasy?

0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  6  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 11:07 am
@McGentrix,
Sometimes people just tire of your "I'm better than you" overbearing attitude.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 01:20 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Experts in firearms are pretty much in agreement that a weapon that shoots through the target, then through the adjacent wall and into the next room are not appropriate for self defense during a home invasion.

So, what gun would you recommend?
Glennn
 
  0  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 01:44 pm
@Glennn,
Two thumb-downs for asking for clarification? What a crew . . .
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 03:08 pm
@Glennn,
A shotgun.
Glennn
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 03:11 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I asked a specific question to a specific person.

Me, too. Apparently this is one of those threads where people believe thumb-wrestling will decide the matter.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Fri 24 Jun, 2022 03:12 pm
@InfraBlue,
A shotgun won't go through walls?

Who told you that?

That's what I thought . . .
 

Related Topics

Texas Creating Its Own Gold-Based Currency - Discussion by edgarblythe
Texas to legalize marijuana? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Texas' Problems - Discussion by edgarblythe
Texas schools -- is this normal? - Question by boomerang
Stars and Bars; How Long, O Lord? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks - Discussion by edgarblythe
Dallas, Texas - Discussion by Thomas
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 07:08:36