Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Gun control brings out the stupid in people.


28 replies to this topic

#1
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,933 posts
Or more appropriate would be it brings out the emotion in people. When people get emotional they either say things they don't mean or things that just aren't true. Enter Gloria Steinem. She posted this quote on her Facebook page.

"I want any young men who buy a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion, it reads. Think about it: a mandatory 48-hour waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, traveling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protesters holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protesters who call him a murderer. After all, it makes more sense to do this for young men seeking guns than for young women seeking an abortion. No young woman needing reproductive freedom has ever murdered a roomful of strangers."

Now she admitted the quote wasn't hers. But that didn't stop scores of female celebs from reposting it like they were taking their own little knee. Now I'm pro choice so that's not what set me off. What set me off at first was the mere comparison of abortion to gun control. Then I thought to myself "when does a woman need permission to get an abortion?" Right I forgot! When your under 18. When can young men under 18 but a gun? Oh that's right they can't! So that young man older than 18 actually good through more scrutiny trying to buy a gun. Sans the people protesting outside the store.

That's tame in comparison to Jimmy Kimmel though. Though I'm now convinced Chuck Schumer wrote that monologue for him as well so whatever. But **** you Kimmel for saying that people's prayers don't count if they aren't for getting rid of guns. Because that's really what he's saying.

#2
David

David

    LOOK ALIVE

  • Member
  • 14,846 posts

it's times like these, i find myself visiting Pat Sajak's twitter feed. It's a feed of wisdom.



#3
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

You mean a mass shooting was used for political purposes by Democrats?  Shock!

 

And since it doesn't look like this can be used to advance any other of their causes like the Confederate flag or Confederate monuments, they're back to their default mode of running it up the middle on gun control.  But make no mistake, they went looking for a way to use the blood of these people to advance their agenda the moment it happened.

 

Hey, remember when they blamed strong political rhetoric back when Obama was in office?  Gee, whatever happened to those objections?



#4
Lord Darth Hunter

Lord Darth Hunter

    Sith Lord of Crystal Lake

  • Member
  • 4,475 posts
I find it ironic that the political side who calls the Trump Administration a bunch of Nazis and continuously finds ways to compare his rise to the presidency to Hitler's rise to power is also the side that advocates for the banning of guns. Hello!?!? Do you realize what you are doing if you truly believe in the Nazi comparisons and at the same continue to push for the disarming of all citizens???
  • Stallion +1 this

#5
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
Is this a gun control rant thread or an abortion rant thread? Is it an echo chamber for labeling the opposition Nazis thread? Is it just a thread to point out that humans are emotional and often irrational? Which topic should be focused on?

How about retreading the old what is irony arguments? Is it ironic to be emotional about other people being emotional? Does posting about it here make it more or less ironic than doing so on Facebook? Is Nightly a safe space for such expression? Now theres a topic! How about triggering? Has anyone been triggered? Is this thread properly labeled as a potentially triggering topic, or is that not necessary if this is a safe space?

I wonder if we could label threads with red or blue, to create safe space for both political sides, so that everyone is safe from being triggered, or at least knows they will be triggered when they enter a thread.
  • Robin +1 this

#6
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,933 posts
You could use your logic in the Star Wars forum once The Last Jedi comes out.

It's not a red or blue topic. It's a head scratch as to the knee jerk people do when something like this happens without all of the facts coming out. And as more info is coming out we're starting to see that gun control might only be a small part of this. It seems that this for was planning something far bigger than what actually happened.

Seeing as it was Wednesday and no thread on the Vegas shootings had popped up, I kinda figured a gun control argument was the last thing anyone wanted to get into. To me it was about the reaction from people who not only jumped to the subject of gun control, but were quick to lump gun advocates into the same category as the shooter himself. This type of rhetoric is going to cause problems down the line. You can't keep calling everyone a racist, sexist, homophobe, or whatever the left has used to the throw at anyone who has conservative views. People are going to snap back. You're already seeing people fight back at these Anifa rallies. It's only a matter of time before someone decides to snap back with a car, a gun, or worse yet a bomb.

I'm also aware that my view isn't the only or right view. A healthy debate(or whatever you want to call what we do here) isn't a bad thing. I honestly take it less personally than real life debate I'm having with Co workers over the Miami-FSU game Saturday.

#7
Svenn

Svenn

  • Members
  • 727 posts

I can't tell if people are actually offended about major events being used for political purposes, or if they just feign offense.  Is politicians talking out loud really what bothers you about politics?  Do we really need a waiting period?  I don't think it's fair to say that dems are "using the blood" of people to advance their agenda (at least, not if you're trying to imply that there's some joy on the liberal side for what happened).  Just like it's not fair to say that Trump took any joy out of San Bernardino when he proposed his muslim ban. In a literal sense, yes, they are using the events for a political purpose.  But I'm not sure why that's offensive?  Politics is reactionary to...everything?

 

Boy, do y'all remember that time that the hawks in Congress passed an AUMF effing THREE DAYS after 9/11?  They should have at least waited a week to start using the blood of dead Americans to advance their war agenda.  Having a little more separation from the event would have made it politically easier for the quakers to speak out in opposition to the AUMF.

 

But yeah, using this to wade into the abortion debate is stupid.  I'm with you there.


  • Kyrian +1 this

#8
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,884 posts

Open carry state laws clearly helped people in Las Vegas. I feel safer already in Texas. Just sayin'. There is no perfect law but we should have Congressmen that want to do more to prevent gun deaths than abortion "deaths".



#9
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts
Which amendment guarantees the right to abortion? Apples and ovaries.

#10
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

I can't tell if people are actually offended about major events being used for political purposes, or if they just feign offense.

 

It's every damn time.  Every damn crisis.  Look over at the Puerto Rico thread for another example.  The Democrats have become downright ghoulish in looking for an opportunity to advance their agenda on top of people's pain.

 

And no, 9/11 is not a good counter-example.  For flips' sake, that was a shock to the country on the level of Pearl Harbor.  Of course military authorization was given immediately.  And I'm pretty sure no one had any great "war agenda" to invade Afghanistan on 9/10.



#11
Svenn

Svenn

  • Members
  • 727 posts

 

I can't tell if people are actually offended about major events being used for political purposes, or if they just feign offense.

 

It's every damn time.  Every damn crisis.  Look over at the Puerto Rico thread for another example.  The Democrats have become downright ghoulish in looking for an opportunity to advance their agenda on top of people's pain.

 

And no, 9/11 is not a good counter-example.  For flips' sake, that was a shock to the country on the level of Pearl Harbor.  Of course military authorization was given immediately.  And I'm pretty sure no one had any great "war agenda" to invade Afghanistan on 9/10.

 

Yeah, it is every damn time.  So maybe I've just become immune to it?  I dunno, like I said, politics is reactionary.  Politicians aren't usually clever enough (or it's just not politically expedient) to identify problems before they happen.  Most of what's talked about is whatever is percolating right now.

 

And yeah, I picked 9/11 on purpose because as far as I know nobody was against the AUMF, but it's based on the same question - when is it appropriate to react politically to tragic breaking news events?


  • Kyrian +1 this

#12
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

Yeah, it is every damn time.  So maybe I've just become immune to it?  I dunno, like I said, politics is reactionary.  Politicians aren't usually clever enough (or it's just not politically expedient) to identify problems before they happen.  Most of what's talked about is whatever is percolating right now.


And yeah, I picked 9/11 on purpose because as far as I know nobody was against the AUMF, but it's based on the same question - when is it appropriate to react politically to tragic breaking news events?

 

That's the thing, it's not reactionary, it's opportunistic.  It's things that the Democrats already want to do.  Get more gun control.  Get rid of Confederate symbols.  Shut Republicans up.  Backburner wish lists become priorities because they have a chance to shame everyone in the country into following what they want.  And in pretty much all of these cases, their solutions have pretty much nothing to do with stopping the next one or would have prevented the original anyway.

 

In and of itself, I have no problem with a reactionary answer like authorizing military force on foreign actors intent on killing Americans.  Or to a lesser extent, using Amber Hagerman's name to standardize a missing child alert system.  But all this is baldly political attempt to restart a issue that's been hashed over many times already and they damn well know it.



#13
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,091 posts

It goes without saying that 'ol Gloria's repost was idiotic with her equally idiotic abortion comparison--but not as disgusting as the now fired CBS legal executive Hayley Geftman-Gold:

 

CBS Legal Executive: No Sympathy For Las Vegas Victims Because Country Music Fans Are Republican

 

Then, there's the latest from Drexel's Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher--
 
 
 

 

The fringe left (AKA the controlling body of the modern left) cannot suppress their true, not so loving nature, even for a moment.



#14
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Sometimes the best gun stories are the ones you never hear about, the times when someone uses the threat of a gun to diffuse a situation. These are moments when people would be dead if they weren't able to defend themselves.

#15
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,490 posts
At least it sounds like they're likely going to tighten restrictions on bump stocks. And, yeah, it's something that most people didn't know about, but that includes a lot of gun owners. It's a miracle when everyone involved can at least agree on something, and it's a win-win. The Democrats can tell that they got something done, the NRA can point out that they back reasonable restrictions, and the Republicans can get cover from the NRA.

Because, let's face it, this isn't a moral question for anyone involved. Washington doesn't deal in morality at all, just politics.
  • Robin +1 this

#16
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,933 posts

It goes without saying that 'ol Gloria's repost was idiotic with her equally idiotic abortion comparison--but not as disgusting as the now fired CBS legal executive Hayley Geftman-Gold:
 
CBS Legal Executive: No Sympathy For Las Vegas Victims Because Country Music Fans Are Republican
 
Then, there's the latest from Drexel's Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher--
 
Drexel professor blames Trumpism, white entitlement for Las Vegas massacre:
 
 
 
The fringe left (AKA the controlling body of the modern left) cannot suppress their true, not so loving nature, even for a moment.

Its like people are talking in real life how they would the comments section of just about anything on the internet.

#17
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I've heard so many stupid things about guns in the last few days it hurts my brain. 

 

Hillary Clinton's "silencer" crap for instance. Silencers don't mix well with high velocity weapons. The bullet breaks the sound barrier, it makes a sonic boom (that's the "other gunman" people think they heard) just like those airplanes used to (kids don't remember that sound). High velocity cartridges also create lots more gas, and the purpose of a silencer is to trap that gas, so the silencer works less effectively the more gas it has to contain. They also get really ****ing hot, I've shot ARs with sound suppressors, after 5 spaced out shots you can't hardly touch it. If the guy had been using a suppressor the fire alarm would have gone of after 1 mag and the silencer would have been a glowing damned beacon. We should be so lucky. Silencers are used for target practice these days to lessen the damage to hearing, but they were originally designed to be used with special low velocity ammunition, which is they only way they are totally effective. Still not like the movies though.

 

I have no problem with banning bump stocks, they are an attempt to break the spirit of a law already in place.



#18
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

I'm glad that after all these years, and after as many gun law threads we have had after every single shooting, we have finally solved the gun debate.  



#19
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,933 posts
What is the gun debate? Seriously, what do you think it is? Should there be stricter legislation on who and how guns can be purchased? Because more often than not, it wouldn't have prevented tragedies like this from happening. Do you think we should get rid of guns all together? Cause we know that's not gonna happen. Tens of thousands of people died last year as a result of drunk driving. Nobody is screaming for a new era of prohibition.

The thing that needed to be legislated is human behavior. And I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about a change in culture. How we are raised. How we treat each other. Even that's not 100%. Bad people are going to do bad things.

#20
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

The gun debate is a bunch of states with less guns, more gun control, and higher crime trying to tell us to relinquish our freedom in order to solve problems we don't have. Our solution (expanding gun rights) works for us, just because it wouldn't work for you doesn't make us wrong. The Bill of Rights is a great responsibility, some states clearly don't have citizens of the proper quality.  Maybe you liberals should work on that instead of whining about how hard freedom is.



#21
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
Fewer guns, not less guns. Guns are discrete, countable units.

Marc, your comment about citizens of proper quality isnt really helpful. It just perpetuates the us-versus-them, rural-versus-urban divide. You dont like people, we get it.

#22
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

What is the gun debate? Seriously, what do you think it is? Should there be stricter legislation on who and how guns can be purchased? Because more often than not, it wouldn't have prevented tragedies like this from happening. Do you think we should get rid of guns all together? Cause we know that's not gonna happen. Tens of thousands of people died last year as a result of drunk driving. Nobody is screaming for a new era of prohibition.

The thing that needed to be legislated is human behavior. And I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about a change in culture. How we are raised. How we treat each other. Even that's not 100%. Bad people are going to do bad things.

Just saying that we've seen this debate 46845498674 times before, and it is never resolved.  And it won't be.  Ever.  Not as long as the discussion ALWAYS devolves to Gunz=Freedom VS Ban them ALL. 

 

It always gets ridiculous.  And I, for one, would like to ban gun discussions from this site, because I am so sick of seeing them.



#23
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,933 posts


What is the gun debate? Seriously, what do you think it is? Should there be stricter legislation on who and how guns can be purchased? Because more often than not, it wouldn't have prevented tragedies like this from happening. Do you think we should get rid of guns all together? Cause we know that's not gonna happen. Tens of thousands of people died last year as a result of drunk driving. Nobody is screaming for a new era of prohibition.

The thing that needed to be legislated is human behavior. And I'm not talking about government. I'm talking about a change in culture. How we are raised. How we treat each other. Even that's not 100%. Bad people are going to do bad things.

Just saying that we've seen this debate 46845498674 times before, and it is never resolved.  And it won't be.  Ever.  Not as long as the discussion ALWAYS devolves to Gunz=Freedom VS Ban them ALL. 
 
It always gets ridiculous.  And I, for one, would like to ban gun discussions from this site, because I am so sick of seeing them.
I get what you're saying. The thread was about the reaction to Vegas as apposed to gun control itself. Thing is what you're saying about gun control debate here can be said about gun control debate in general.

#24
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

Fewer guns, not less guns. Guns are discrete, countable units.

Marc, your comment about citizens of proper quality isnt really helpful. It just perpetuates the us-versus-them, rural-versus-urban divide. You dont like people, we get it.

*don't

 


  • pavonis +1 this

#25
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,884 posts

70% of the population doesn't even own guns. Much like who gets to be president is decided by a small representative population of voters who actually show up to vote we are protecting the rights of a very small group of people who own guns and in some cases LOTS of guns. Open carry is a useless law because it doesn't do anything except make a new way for you to openly display your weapon in public. We actually protect the rights of gun owners to the point that there is no way to actually track all the guns bought in the US as there's no trail of computerized paperwork or national database like say a drivers license to drive a car. There are lots of tiny things that Congress could actually do to make it seem like they are doing something but they won't. A small thing could be to take away the sales of bump stocks.





Reply to this topic