Cuse, you don’t understand, the cops had a good reason to arrest that guy. Cactus clearly implied that if he shoots cops it will be because they are arresting for a bad reason, in his opinion. How do you not get the disintinction? Lol.
This thread is so much AIDS.
1 Like
I mean fucking lol at chiding Cuse for that joke after Cactus’ postings itt or Tabbaker’s tankie crap like ACAB.
2 Likes
How do you not get the use of comedic license?
I’ll admit I haven’t been keeping up much with the Cactus stuff, so maybe he deserves some trolling back, I just think it’s a bad look for posters (and especially mods) to make jokes about other posters being potential shooters.
They’re making fun of me, silly.
1 Like
Congressional Republicans have circulated a memo falsely describing the El Paso shooting, carried out by a man spewing white supremacist views, as “violence from the left.”
The Tampa Bay Times reports:
A document obtained by the Tampa Bay Times and sent by House Republicans provides a framework for how to respond to anticipated questions like, ‘Why won’t you pass legislation to close the ‘gun show loophole’ in federal law?’ and ‘Why shouldn’t we ban high-capacity magazines?’ The answers are boilerplate Republican arguments against tougher gun restrictions.
But it also included this question: ‘Do you believe white nationalism is driving more mass shootings recently?’ The suggested response is to steer the conversation away from white nationalism to an argument that implies both sides are to blame.
‘White nationalism and racism are pure evil and cannot be tolerated in any form,’ the document said. ‘We also can’t excuse violence from the left such as the El Paso shooter, the recent Colorado shooters, the Congressional baseball shooter, Congresswoman Giffords’ shooter and Antifa.’
A spokesperson for a Republican congressman claimed that the inclusion of El Paso was a mistake and that it was meant to refer to the Dayton shooting. But the motivation of the Dayton attacker is much less clear than that of the El Paso shooter, who posted an anti-immigrant screed online shortly before killing 22 people.
Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican congressman and Trump ally, argued against red flaw laws in response to a story about the House judiciary committee holding a September hearing on several gun bills.
Rep. Jim Jordan
(@Jim_Jordan)
The problem with Red Flag laws is you’re guilty until proven innocent.
It’s the same inverted standard that Bob Mueller tried to apply to President Trump.
But that’s not how justice works in our great country.https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/16/judiciary-committee-gun-control-measures-1466419
August 16, 2019
Red flag laws, already enacted in 17 states and the District of Columbia, allow judges to take guns away from people deemed to be dangerous. Trump has voiced support for such laws, but some of his allies have pushed back against the idea.
For example, Jordan’s tweet echoes a talking point from the National Rifle Association, who warned last week that no one should have their guns confiscated without “due process.”
I am not at all callous to the senseless loss of lives from guns. I don’t think randoms should be able to own a piece of equipment that has a singular purpose of killing 50 people in a couple of minutes. Ideally no one should own one. I simply stated why I don’t think we should give up that right yet
I’m not even opposed to police forces having access to"slightly" more firepower than the general public. But every squad car shouldn’t be equipped with one nor should bullet proof vests be standard issue. If you don’t like or agree with my reasoning then you can fuck off or tell me to fuck off, but stop putting words in my mouth or telling me how I feel
1 Like
Yeah I get it. You’re confused and don’t understand the logic of people who don’t want to give up their right to defend themselves. That couldn’t be more obvious
I can defend myself just fine without a automatic rifle, thanks.
How about since the American police have not committed over 250 mass shootings this year that we disarm the general population 1st,as that’s where the mass shooters are coming from.
Cactus, fuck off. Lol guns.
3 Likes
About 60 people have been killed in 2019 in mass shootings anything like what gets talked about (assault rifle shooter killing people they don’t know). Most of the mass shootings are with handguns and involve some other crime and counting those a few hundred people have been killed in 2019. The police kill about 1000 people per year.
I’m not suggesting an assault weapons ban should be tied to police demilitarization/disarmament, but that issue stands on its own.
3 Likes
You literally can’t reason with someone who feels the need to have assault rifles to defend themselves. They’re fucking nuts. It’s a damn fallacy that we’ll be preyed upon as soon as our weapons go away.
Shotgun? Sure maybe. I personally don’t own one because there’s 0% chance I’d shoot an intruder in my home… but I understand the want/need to have one.
3 Likes
Go look up how many police officers die violently each year. The shit feeds itself. I don’t care if you are an anarchist or not, it’s a very real problem that’s pretty specific to our country (guns and police having to be more aggressive here more than other countries without guns) that needs to be addressed (and saying people should just rule themselves doesn’t help much at this moment), and guys like Cactus try to shirk off their responsibility.
Policing is not very dangerous. My job is more than twice as dangerous.
1 Like
Yeah, sure.
Specific police jobs are more dangerous despite your claim.
Be specific then. It’s certainly not anything close to the majority of cops or even SWAT team members. Sorry but the truckers I deal with every day have 350% of the risk to life and limb the typical cop does.
Just playing SMP here, but this isn’t a fair comparison. Civil war is different. It either divides the military or it doesn’t happen, at least not without foreign supply of heavier arms. The defense required to be mounted is against the police, not the military. Like check out the wiki page on the Iranian Revolution. It was clashes between protesters and police. The military intervened somewhat, but:
Demoralization of the Army[edit]
A protester giving flowers to an army officer
The military leadership was increasingly paralyzed by indecision, and rank-and-file soldiers were demoralized, having been forced to confront demonstrators while prohibited from using their own weapons (and being condemned by the Shah if they did).[111] Increasingly, Khomeini called on the soldiers of the armed forces to defect to the opposition.[99][110] Revolutionaries gave flowers and civilian clothes to deserters, while threatening retribution to those who stayed. On 11 December, a dozen officers were shot dead by their own troops at Tehran’s Lavizan barracks. Fearing further mutinies, many soldiers were returned to their barracks.[111] Mashhad (the second largest city in Iran) was abandoned to the protesters, and in many provincial towns demonstrators were effectively in control.
I AM NOT CALLING FOR VIOLENT REVOLUTION - but, it’s not about lightly armed civilians fighting against jet fighters and tanks.
(also, I’ve never had a gun and never will and don’t think the 2A should be sacred, some kind of assault weapons ban is a good idea, and local areas or states should even be able to completely ban guns.)
More ignorant group think from the brainwashed. Policing doesn’t even crack the top 10 in job mortality rates. Being an electrician is a far more dangerous line of work. Also, almost half of police deaths are due to traffic accidents