Another day another mass shooting

Not that there is a reason to equivocate or whataboutism this, but wasn't that Kelly Anne Conway?

Trump just stepped in his own pile of Toledo shaped doo-doo.

 

My mistake, you are correct, that was kellyanne.

 

Not exactly. The Bill of Rights was written by human beings and was ratified by a vote, along with rules on how to change the rules if we don't like them. We can choose if we like the second amendment or not; we don't have to be stuck with it. What I really hear you saying is that you still want it, even after everything that's happened.

Props to McCollister.

In other words, nothing will happen but he wants to put the blame for it on the Democrats. Same negotiating trick he uses all the time -- take hostages.

Seems like a bad idea to me. Even if you got some kind of compromise out of McConnell, it'd still need a signature from Trump, a faithless negotiator. At best, you can get some hand waving about mental health (but not real help on mental health because that would dig up all our healthcare problems).

 

Yes, we can, that's why they're called amendments. As in, to change something.

Reminds me of this Jim Jeffries bit:

 

Joe Biden is not a good candidate. Mistakes like that don't help when there are concerns about your age.

 

It's super disheartening and cynical but it's not unreasonable to think that the only way we're going to get the 2nd Amendment updated is if enough people in America end up as friends or relatives of victims, or victims themselves of gun violence themselves, that this number of people forms an actual voting bloc.

Either that, or we end up with a hostile government takeover (or more likely civil war) where civilian armaments prove to be as ineffectual vs. the modern state military as we all know they are.

Whichever comes first.

 

Stable geniuses don't misspeak. It's all fake news and dark internet conspiracy.

 

A mother died shielding her infant in El Paso. The father died shielding them both, family says.


____

As a new father, I just can't.

 

Trump just said Toledo was the site of the shooting on Sunday.

 

The worst part about that was Trump was reading from a teleprompter (remember how much the MAGA chuds hated Obama doing that?), so that script went through numerous eyeballs before it hit Trump.

 

Just a hunch but.. What's effectual in a society, as far as political demands go, are spontaneous and populous protests - that's why dictatorships fear them so much. Arab spring started with a single person lighting himself on fire, if I remember right. While a population has guns, there is no easy way to suppress possibility of such protests without bloodshed (which will only give these protests more power) even when you have a great propaganda machine in place. And thus I think 2nd amendment still has a place in a society.

Someone suggested a drone strike as a solution against people holed up with guns against government - well if there are many nuclei of such people and a lot of collateral damage, then it becomes ineffectual. with the amount of guns in the country, I'd say it's likely that there are many nuclei. Government will have to take into account these people and their views. No one really solved an issue of partisan/urban warfare when it comes to a politically aware state. AI robots. Wait for those and then you can get rid of 2nd amendment.

 

This is what I don't get about the "we need it to keep gubbermints in check" thing.

The thing that keeps the federal government in check are state militaries/defense forces/organized militias. Not Cletus and his hog huntin' AR-15 or David and his suburban home-defending Ruger.

If we ever saw a day and age where the federal government started hugely overreaching (meaning it was doing something highly unpopular and unrepresentative of its people's wishes), you would see states organize against it and declare open rebellion.

The states having their own governments are the real check on authority. And vice versa (if a state ever stepped over the line, the federal government can be just as much a liberating force).

 

Have you seen GOP falling in line recently as one to ideas that they weren't supporting just 1 election cycle ago? Democracies die in darkness and we are no where close to being a politically aware state that it takes to keep our government honest.

But you are welcome to keep to your complacent "everything will take care of itself" type of thinking...

 

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. That is not what I said, implied, or am advocating.

 

California SDF is consistent of 1300 (probably volunteers). That's probably what I mean by 'complacent' thinking. Anyway. Let's just agree to disagree on this contentious issue.

 

I guess my point is it seems highly unlikely that we'll have a sudden, internal "red dawn" scenario where the jackbooted thugs come kicking in our doors and confiscating weapons. When the **** hits the fan, it won't be a clean break. It will be messy, and the ability to resist will rely largely on the state governments organizing. Not civilians and their random small arms.

 

Liberal media is burying a 3rd mass shooting yesterday by a Muslim Antifa terrorist in Toledo, Ohio -- doesn't fit the narrative.

 

At least he got the state right.

I think it's just the opposite. When protesters have guns, it gives government an excuse to suppress them even with bloodshed, and government sympathizers can rationalize that "it was unfortunate, but it was a dangerous situation and the government did what it had to." The Arab Spring you mentioned started as a mostly unarmed nonviolent protest. The civil rights protests used nonviolence, Indian independence famously used nonviolence. It doesn't always (or even often) work -- the Arab Spring failed in most (but not all) countries, Latin American protests against US puppet governments were often suppressed with government violence, and we'll see how Hong Kong works out. But pulling the guns out is tantamount to inviting government suppression. Guns won't make anything better.