The irony is that Hass out of everyone here is the most reasonable.
I’m glad not all right leaning people act like cliffy.
I’m glad not all right leaning people act like cliffy.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
kiss his ass some more, I'm sure it will pay dividends later
maybe slip him some tongue too, I hear he likes that
Yeah he loves it.
But seriously your having a go at hass for being left but out of every person here he is the most reasonable person when it comes to politics.
I shall await your edgy insults back.
But seriously your having a go at hass for being left but out of every person here he is the most reasonable person when it comes to politics.
I shall await your edgy insults back.
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
fuck being reasonable
you know what being reasonable got us? every fucking piece of restrictive firearms legislation for the past fucking.. what is it, ~80 years? legislation that did jack and shit besides undermine an enumerated right.
looking up to reasonable people is fucking stupid when you're dealing with absolutely UNreasonable people on the other side. at some point you have to say "You know what? Fuck you. Molon labe." you don't reason with the unreasonable, you shoot at them until they learn to fuck with someone else. The fucking English demanded we be reasonable. We shot them. And good fucking riddance.
In any event, I don't know why anyone is bothering talking about this shit with non-Americans (in the context of American gun control). Their opinions are less than worthless. Yeah, we really want to follow YOUR lead, Europe. Fuck off. So fucking enlightened you are, as you labor under an unaccountable oligarchy trying to flood you with cheap labor prospects that also happen to be openly hostile to everything you hold fucking dear. I've stopped counting the news stories about rape gangs operating with little fear of police intervention, the curtailing of national traditions and holidays for fear of offending the New Europeans, all of it. It just gets depressing to watch someone else commit suicide after a while. It is distinctly amusing that you think we should emulate you, though, you fucking miserable failures.
Trade liberty for security, deserve neither, get neither. Fitting!
Last edited:
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
@MutantScalper Can you get this thread on track again. Post some nonsense about how Finnish cops are super-human soldiers that can shoot the hair off a flea's ass from 200 yards away.
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
Nah, fuck you, this issue is settled
a721402
Perhaps tomorrow will be better.
Why Finnish cops need to be super sniper when they can just take drug and become superman?
Well, in all fairness if there is someone I could believe this to be true, it would be the Finnish.
Simo "Simuna" Häyhä (Finnish pronunciation: [ˈsimo̞ ˈhæy̯ɦæ]; 17 December 1905 – 1 April 2002), nicknamed "White Death" (Russian: Белая смерть, Belaja smert; Finnish: valkoinen kuolema; Swedish: den vita döden) by the Red Army,[2] was a Finnish sniper. Using a Finnish-produced M/28-30 rifle (a variant of the Mosin–Nagant rifle) and a Suomi KP/-31, he reportedly killed 505 men during the 1939–40 Winter War, the highest recorded number of sniper kills in any major war.[3][4][5] Häyhä estimated in his diary he killed more than five hundred Red Army soldiers in the Winter War (by both sniper rifle and machine/submachine gun).[6] Antti Rantama (Häyhä's unit military chaplain) credited 259 confirmed sniper kills and an equal number of kills by machine/submachine gun were made by Simo Häyhä during the Winter War.
The guy said once, he didn't use a scope because it gave him a higher profile.
I like that with all his sperging he kinda forgets that I'm still against restrictive firearms laws. Ok, maybe Cliffy shouldn't have a gun, but I'm sure his mom forbids him to play with the dangerous toys.
Most of us here are against restrictive firearm laws, including me. But we havn't even got to that point in the debate. That's the sad thing really. We often talk about gun culture here and for some even THAT issue is a serious problem to admit and it usually always ends up in deflecting. Yeah but what about psychological issues? Which is of course true, but then you open another can of worms. The fucked up healthcare in the US, which as we all know would require pure communist dictatorship to fix, of course, and so the discussion always spinds around extremes and extreme positions. This is the whole issue with this gun-debate thing. Everyone concentrates only on the frindge positions and extremes, there is litterly no middle ground.
The whole debate is basically pointless of course.
I think the cultural and historical differences between the US and Europe are a major issue in this debate, and at the root of the whole thing. It's just how it is, the frontier mentality is a major part of US history and can't just be ignored.
When it comes to the level of "restrictive" in firearms, where should oe draw the line, though?
Everyone should be able to get a handgun/shotgun/semiautomatic rifle? Sounds reasonable. But what about automatic rifles? They're surely not necessary for self-defense, but a well-maintained militia would need those to be efficient, right? And how about explosive devices and anti-tank weaponry and so on? Full on military equipment? In a broader sense, the 2nd Amendment should allow for those as well, right?
I think there needs to be some rethinking about the whole "militia" aspect of the 2nd Amendment. I think I said it before, but the National Guard was originally supposed to be exactly that, but since it's now under federal control and US Army command, it's not really fit for the purpose of fighting against a tyrannical government anymore. And they won't give it up, either.
So you'd need a properly federally independent militia, but I'm not sure that you'd attract the best people for that. I mean, "Forming militia to train with military gear against a possible tyrannical government", you can imagine the people going for that, it'd be an extremist hotbed.
I guess however you do it, it's going to suck.
The other big issue concerning (gun-related) violence would be social inequality and general poverty. People shooting each other doesn't happen out of the blue, there are root causes, and while fat people shooting each other over a Walmart parking space might be more rooted in the frontier-mentality and desensitization when it comes to guns, the majority is rooted in poverty and hopelessness, I'd think. The opioid crisis, worsening situation in big cities, deindustrialization... All big issues that factor into violence in the streets. And these things take a while to tackle and eventually fix, so don't expect some quick fix for people shooting each other. That won't go away anytime soon.
I think the cultural and historical differences between the US and Europe are a major issue in this debate, and at the root of the whole thing. It's just how it is, the frontier mentality is a major part of US history and can't just be ignored.
When it comes to the level of "restrictive" in firearms, where should oe draw the line, though?
Everyone should be able to get a handgun/shotgun/semiautomatic rifle? Sounds reasonable. But what about automatic rifles? They're surely not necessary for self-defense, but a well-maintained militia would need those to be efficient, right? And how about explosive devices and anti-tank weaponry and so on? Full on military equipment? In a broader sense, the 2nd Amendment should allow for those as well, right?
I think there needs to be some rethinking about the whole "militia" aspect of the 2nd Amendment. I think I said it before, but the National Guard was originally supposed to be exactly that, but since it's now under federal control and US Army command, it's not really fit for the purpose of fighting against a tyrannical government anymore. And they won't give it up, either.
So you'd need a properly federally independent militia, but I'm not sure that you'd attract the best people for that. I mean, "Forming militia to train with military gear against a possible tyrannical government", you can imagine the people going for that, it'd be an extremist hotbed.
I guess however you do it, it's going to suck.
The other big issue concerning (gun-related) violence would be social inequality and general poverty. People shooting each other doesn't happen out of the blue, there are root causes, and while fat people shooting each other over a Walmart parking space might be more rooted in the frontier-mentality and desensitization when it comes to guns, the majority is rooted in poverty and hopelessness, I'd think. The opioid crisis, worsening situation in big cities, deindustrialization... All big issues that factor into violence in the streets. And these things take a while to tackle and eventually fix, so don't expect some quick fix for people shooting each other. That won't go away anytime soon.
That's getting into details again I guess. But the more I think about it though, the more do I feel you can brake down a lot of isues on one thing, fear. I am really not a fan of Michael Moore who I think is insulting documentaries with his stuff, but he was spot on with his point that Americans as a society have become very fearefull. It does seem that some psychological effects can be applied to societies, of course only in a very limited fashion, but when believe a lot of stuff makes sense when you see how fear has become somewhat like a drug delivered by the news - literally all big news in the US. It's comical ...
Well yeah, basically everything can be boiled down to fear if you try hard enough. But that doesn't move the debate along at all. So Americans are scared. Of what? Why? How can it be improved? The details are important, because if you just look at the superficial stuff you get the wrong picture.
Standard point: Blacks in the US are disproportionately involved in violent crimes. That's a simple fact, it's right there in the statistics. Without taking into account the details and history, you might now think "Damn, those blacks sure are violent. We need to take their guns away first and hit them with harder prison sentences to teach them a lesson!", which is not a productive solution at all.
Standard point: Blacks in the US are disproportionately involved in violent crimes. That's a simple fact, it's right there in the statistics. Without taking into account the details and history, you might now think "Damn, those blacks sure are violent. We need to take their guns away first and hit them with harder prison sentences to teach them a lesson!", which is not a productive solution at all.
The point is, that we're talking about a lot irrational behaviour here and no amount of fact based conversation will probably change that. How to fix it? No clue, telling people to be less afraid? No clue really. But what do you tell people that buy a weapon to protect them self from a 'statistic' danger that most problay won't ever happen to them. Best example? Your point about black people being involved in crimes. If you're a white american and afraid of that, well good luck for you! Because the largest number of victims of black crimes are ... black people.
Last edited:
So what if people buy a gun if they're afraid? They have a gun now. And? That says nothing and doesn't add anything to the conversation by itself.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Virgil is Hass's sockpuppet? That would be pretty impressive actually.
Well, in all fairness if there is someone I could believe this to be true, it would be the Finnish.
Simo "Simuna" Häyhä (Finnish pronunciation: [ˈsimo̞ ˈhæy̯ɦæ]; 17 December 1905 – 1 April 2002), nicknamed "White Death" (Russian: Белая смерть, Belaja smert; Finnish: valkoinen kuolema; Swedish: den vita döden) by the Red Army,[2] was a Finnish sniper. Using a Finnish-produced M/28-30 rifle (a variant of the Mosin–Nagant rifle) and a Suomi KP/-31, he reportedly killed 505 men during the 1939–40 Winter War, the highest recorded number of sniper kills in any major war.[3][4][5] Häyhä estimated in his diary he killed more than five hundred Red Army soldiers in the Winter War (by both sniper rifle and machine/submachine gun).[6] Antti Rantama (Häyhä's unit military chaplain) credited 259 confirmed sniper kills and an equal number of kills by machine/submachine gun were made by Simo Häyhä during the Winter War.
The guy said once, he didn't use a scope because it gave him a higher profile.
There are no 100 % reliable stats about Häyhä's kills. There were many since he was a good shot and at least some of his kills were confirmed by a spotter/someone else etc. They were in a static position, meaning they were defending an area for a relatively long time with a target rich environment with Soviet soldiers running around in a rather dumb way, sometimes making human wave attacks etc. Real figure could be around 250 - 300 killed with sniper rifle and unknown amount with mg/smg.
At that time there was journalist who was following Häyhä around with the specific purpose of building him up to be a 'front line legend' to boost morale. Other militaries at that time had the same thing, basically war propaganda.
If you want to find more guerilla-fighter style Finnish 'rambos' of WW 2, you have to look at guys who weren't snipers but more long range patrol types. IMHO they put themselves into more risk than Häyhä. Althogh Häyhä did end up taking a bullet to the face himself and was badly wounded, didn't die though.
Last edited:
Uh, I don't know? That paranoia and weapons are not a good combination maybe, just like alcohol and driving? That people become so afraid where irrational fear leads to irrational behaviour?
Like the need for a neighbourhood watch shooting suspects, as it happend with Trayvon Martin:
From January 1, 2011, through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times.[22] Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[35] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
It simply leads to, situations where people tend to shoot first and ask questions later and where decisions are also based on unreasonable fear https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...s-the-nra-and-gun-industry-s-deadliest-weapon.
Last edited:
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
You're exactly the kind of dumbfuck that would buckle in the face of a screaming soccer mom. You have no spine on ANY matter, particularly this one. If nothing else, the direction YOUR country has taken tells me that I really don't need or want you involved in my country's politics. You're either complicit in the direction it's taken (given your statist stance this wouldn't surprise me - libertarian, HA) or you're so utterly ineffectual that you have failed to impress even the slightest of "libertarian ideals" on those around you.
I mean, here you are acting like these people can be reasoned with! That you can have reasonable discussion with people who clutch pearls at the sight of a BABY KILLER, that you can use reason with people who have abandoned it in favor of swinging around a cudgel made of fear. You, you supposed libertarian, should be telling these people how hard they can get fucked and with what implement, but no, you think you need to be "reasonable" with the unreasonable. Again, this is what got us the AWB, the NFA, all of it. You're worse than they are, actually - traitors should get bullets before avowed enemies - but you have the GALL to insist that you're somehow on the side of gun rights!
Last edited:
Since when is "impressing libertarian ideals on those around you" a libertarian ideal?
I like that you're returning to "your country sucks so you must suck". Always fun to see psychopathological symptoms in action. And good to see that NPCs exist on both sides.
So anyway, societal issues are super complex, and it rarely does any good to simplify them. Yeah, scared people with guns can be dangerous, especially if they're stupid. But just saying that people are afraid doesn't do anything at all. One has to look at WHY they are afraid and HOW it can be helped.
Were the people in The Retreat not rightfully afraid? So many crimes in a neighbourhood, that's pretty shitty. That's what needs fixing, not telling people to not be afraid and not have any guns around when the police is called to your neighbourhood on average more than once a day, and where burglaries and thefts are common. If the situation in your neighbourhood is so shitty that you feel yourself in need for a neighbourhood watch, something is going fundamentally wrong.
Let people have guns. But don't make them use them against each other.
I like that you're returning to "your country sucks so you must suck". Always fun to see psychopathological symptoms in action. And good to see that NPCs exist on both sides.
So anyway, societal issues are super complex, and it rarely does any good to simplify them. Yeah, scared people with guns can be dangerous, especially if they're stupid. But just saying that people are afraid doesn't do anything at all. One has to look at WHY they are afraid and HOW it can be helped.
Were the people in The Retreat not rightfully afraid? So many crimes in a neighbourhood, that's pretty shitty. That's what needs fixing, not telling people to not be afraid and not have any guns around when the police is called to your neighbourhood on average more than once a day, and where burglaries and thefts are common. If the situation in your neighbourhood is so shitty that you feel yourself in need for a neighbourhood watch, something is going fundamentally wrong.
Let people have guns. But don't make them use them against each other.
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
Getting people to realize the state is a shitty fucking apparatus that needs to be minimized at the very LEAST is the backbone of libertarian thought, you mong. It's not like gunpoint conversion or anything, but you need to be able to get people to realize that the state fucking sucks at what it does 95 percent of the time and it's probably by fucking DESIGN. ANY political thought needs to be communicated effectively to others in order to be worth anything. You accept that not everyone will agree with you, but it should never discourage you from broaching the subject and pushing as hard as you can for your side of it. Again, you're a weak, milquetoast excuse for a "libertarian", you've been convinced that a CHOICE to not try and foster libertarian ideals in others is itself libertarian, when it's simply stupid, cowardly passivity.
Your country DOES suck, and as a countryman of that country you own that to some degree. In my communications with you you have proven to be a limpdicked son of a bitch, regardless, so I stand vindicated in my opinion here - your country sucks because you suck, and your country is probably filled with people that suck as much or more than you.
No one's making anyone use guns against each other. What the fuck is this non-argument? What the fuck is this concession?