And if you believe most of that is ancient history, I have another very simple question: Where was the NRA when Philando Castile, a black man who was shot an killed by police for no other reason than having the temerity to be a black man who had applied and received a license to carry a firearm?? They said nothing for a month before finally being shamed into a weak statement.
What an absurd argument. Because African Americans didn't historically enjoy the same rights, the right is delegitimized?
Use that same logic for free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable warrantless seizures. Black Americans didn't enjoy those rights for centuries. Should we repeal the 1st and 4th? Are those who support free speech now "white supremacists" too?
This is the reason I don't listen to Scahill and his fellow Jill Stein Democracy Now lunatics.
What an absurd argument. Because African Americans didn't historically enjoy the same rights, the right is delegitimized?
Use that same logic for free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable warrantless seizures. Black Americans didn't enjoy those rights for centuries. Should we repeal the 1st and 4th? Are those who support free speech now "white supremacists" too?
This is the reason I don't listen to Scahill and his fellow Jill Stein Democracy Now lunatics.
He never said the right was delegitimized. He goes out of his way to say that the entire gun debate is on the margins. Where did he ever call for a repeal of the Second Amendment in that video (besides simply mentioning what Warren Burger said)?? It was all about the historical context, and I have brought up this issue of Reagan ushering in gun control in California when this happened before, though I didn't have the archival footage. He is saying that the idea that EVERYONE has the same level of 2nd Amendment rights is a myth, which it is. See Philando Castile.
What an absurd argument. Because African Americans didn't historically enjoy the same rights, the right is delegitimized?
Use that same logic for free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable warrantless seizures. Black Americans didn't enjoy those rights for centuries. Should we repeal the 1st and 4th? Are those who support free speech now "white supremacists" too?
This is the reason I don't listen to Scahill and his fellow Jill Stein Democracy Now lunatics.
He never said the right was delegitimized. He goes out of his way to say that the entire gun debate is on the margins. Where did he ever call for a repeal of the Second Amendment in that video (besides simply mentioning what Warren Burger said)?? It was all about the historical context, and I have brought up this issue of Reagan ushering in gun control in California when this happened before, though I didn't have the archival footage. He is saying that the right that EVERYONE has the same level of 2nd Amendment rights is a myth, which it is. See Philando Castile.
He's using the highlighted bit to disparage the right, when the same historical argument can be made about any right.
On top of that he slanders everyone who supports the second amendment as a "white supremacist" at the end of the video.
And if you believe most of that is ancient history, I have another very simple question: Where was the NRA when Philando Castile, a black man who was shot an killed by police for no other reason than having the temerity to be a black man who had applied and received a license to carry a firearm?? They said nothing for a month before finally being shamed into a weak statement.
That is the difference between a livestock, a salve and a citizen. Citizen can have guns. The fact that minorities was unable to bear arms in past means that it was a past injustice. Also, if police is "racist", why remove the unique way to minorities to defend themselves? About "80% of weapons are owned" by whites, USA is 70% white(at least declare white).
I never understood the logic. Abortion, every liberal knows that ban abortion will not prevent a woman to travel to other country and abort in other country or illegally abort, but with guns, a gun ban will magically disintegrate 300m+ guns and prevent everyone from making homemade guns or illegally importing guns...
"The Second Amendment stems from an ideology that is rooted in the belief that white people have the right to control others with their weapons."
I call bullshit on this. The Second Amendment was put in place only so that the government could not disarm the citizens--race had absolutely *nothing* to do with it whatsoever. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint all gun owners as closet (or overt) racists.
You have to be careful citing The Intercept--sometimes it falls off the left-hand side of the spectrum down into irrationality.
The UK police have now confirmed that a nerve agent was used in the attempt to kill Skripal and his daughter.
What on the face of it is odd about this is that there is almost no chance that this type of chemical would be available to or used by terrorists or other criminals - as opposed to national governments. As in the Litvinenko case the choice of weapon seems to have been deliberately designed to send a statement.
There have been quite a few deaths in the UK in recent years of people with Russian connections that have been (at least officially) written off as accidents or suicides. I remember following quite closely the case of Gareth Williams, who was found dead inside a holdall together with a key to a padlock locking the holdall shut, and wondering just how the police managed to conclude that had been an accident. So if Russian authorities were involved in some of these 'accidental' deaths, why have they decided this time to make it so obvious?
I think there is a plausible answer to that question. This case is similar to one not long ago when Kim Jong Un's half-brother was killed with VX nerve gas. It comes down to the desire of states to project power - and that requires that the source of actions is known.
Over time Russia has been getting gradually bolder in the way it conducts international affairs - whether those are in accordance with international law or not. Things that come to mind just off the top of my head include: - the quasi-legal seizure of foreign-held shareholdings. - the program of hacking activity to interfere in foreign elections. - the annexation of Crimea. - the invasion of Ukraine. - the war in Syria. - Putin's recent announcement that Russia has ballistic missiles that can evade defenses.
Note that for some of the above the actions are publicly announced, while in others (hacking, Ukraine, assassinations) Russia publicly denies responsibility. However, in all the above cases the actions seem to be clearly intended to send a message about the power of the Russian state - and that also applies to a lot of what is done domestically (like state-sponsored doping or control of internal elections).
If I lived in one of the Baltic states I would certainly be concerned about the threat from Russia. It's pretty clear that Russia would not be deterred from invading them by international condemnation, so any deterrence must rest on the defense they could muster. It's perhaps also worth tying this point into one of the themes discussed before in this thread, i.e. why Russia would have wanted to support Donald Trump as a candidate. One of the plausible reasons for that is that Trump had stated NATO was obsolete and that countries that wouldn't pay their fair share towards the organisation's costs should be left to defend themselves rather than being able to depend on the NATO commitment to mutual self-defense.
Edit: here's also a comment piece on the difficulties facing the UK government if it did wish to register its disapproval of Russian actions.
This is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint all gun owners as closet (or overt) racists.
Painting people who disagree with you as monsters is one of two things that I just can't stomach in political discourse.
The other is saddling everyone who takes a certain position with the worst possible examples of those who share their views, or with the absolute incoherent arguments in favor of that position. It usually goes "random commentator on MSNBC/Fox made x insane comment, this is what all liberals/conservatives/libertarians believe".
Not only does it show bad faith, but (annoyingly) it sometimes ends up being persuasive to partisan audiences who want to reaffirm the righteousness of their worldview by comparing themselves favorably to those who disagree with them. 2/3 major cable news channels are built on this.
This is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint all gun owners as closet (or overt) racists.
Painting people who disagree with you as monsters is one of two things that I just can't stomach in political discourse.
The other is saddling everyone who takes a certain position with the worst possible examples of those who share their views, or with the absolute incoherent arguments in favor of that position. It usually goes "random commentator on MSNBC/Fox made x insane comment, this is what all liberals/conservatives/libertarians believe".
Not only does it show bad faith, but (annoyingly) it sometimes ends up being persuasive to partisan audiences who want to reaffirm the righteousness of their worldview by comparing themselves favorably to those who disagree with them. 2/3 major cable news channels are built on this.
Where would ascribing motives to arguments people make that aren't there fall on your list?? Not only did that video not do anything remotely like what is being suggested, it didn't even actually make an argument for gun control in it's entire 10 minutes. I watched it 3 times to be sure. It was about a specific historical incident that is the most glaring example of the premise, which is that gun rights are way more of an actual right for one group of citizens compared to another, and how the very IDEA of one group exercising those rights was enough to cause the patron saint of conservatism (Reagan) to abandon the 2nd Amendment altogether in California in the 60s. It didn't argue gun rights should be taken away from anyone, nor did it call gun owners racist. It was making the point that the most high-profile time African-Americans made a show of open-carrying in this country, white Americans in were so scared shitless by it that they changed the gun laws. The video is about black people not actually having Second Amendment rights. Or are we actually going to argue that a white guy in cowboy boots open-carrying an AR-15 while walking down the street of a city in this country would be treated the same way by a passing cop as a black man doing the exact same thing?? Oftentimes a black man can't even have his hands anywhere near the vicinity of his waist around a police officer without risking his life, whether he has a gun or not. Even the IDEA he might have a gun could be a death sentence. Ask any black person what they do when they are pulled over by cops, and they'll tell you stories of being terrified to even move their hands off the steering wheel, and asking explicit permission and explaing meticulously that they are reaching for their identification when asked to provide it. Gun rights for African-Americans?? In encounters with law enforcement, it isn't even safe for the officer to IMAGINE they have a gun.
For a concrete example that resulted in the death of a child, we have Tamir Rice. Ohio is an open-carry state. Both of the officers stated they thought Rice was about 20 years old when they saw him. Well if a perceived 20-year old adult visibly has a gun in an open-carry state, how can the first instinct be to EXECUTE that person within 2 seconds rather than ascertain if the gun was being open-carried legally??
He didn't ascribe anything to the Intercept podcast; I did. Did I misquote the blurb attached to it? (the answer is "no", since I copy/pasted it) The blurb stated, quite plainly, that the Second Amendment is based on the idea that white people get to control others with guns--how is that not trying to paint gun owners, or people who support that amendment, as racists?
He didn't ascribe anything to the Intercept podcast; I did. Did I misquote the blurb attached to it? (the answer is "no", since I copy/pasted it) The blurb stated, quite plainly, that the Second Amendment is based on the idea that white people get to control others with guns--how is that not trying to paint gun owners, or people who support that amendment, as racists?
You didn't misquote it but you may be misinterpreting or misrepresenting it.
And we care about the Russian Hockey League because...why? Not our sports league, not our problem.
I think it's interesting that the mind of an autocrat would be so obsessed with winning the championship of a sports league even though he is well aware the result is fixed. It's not dissimilar to using a cheat code to win a video game. If you aren't organically overcoming the challenge, what is the point?? From a purely nationalistic PR perspective, it makes sense to have his team "win". But I highly suspect Putin actually does care about his hockey team. What is the point of an athletic competition that is rigged??
And we care about the Russian Hockey League because...why? Not our sports league, not our problem.
I think it's interesting that the mind of an autocrat would be so obsessed with winning the championship of a sports league even though he is well aware the result is fixed. It's not dissimilar to using a cheat code to win a video game. If you aren't organically overcoming the challenge, what is the point?? From a purely nationalistic PR perspective, it makes sense to have his team "win". But I highly suspect Putin actually does care about his hockey team. What is the point of an athletic competition that is rigged??
Who are Trump's favorite teams? Might be time for me to go to Vegas!
I don't know about Russia but in the United States when a competition is rigged it is because someone (or some group) stands to make a lot of money based on the outcome of the event; it is probably the same there, as well.
Trump is apparently supposed to meet today with video game industry representatives about violence in video games and the gun debate. I honestly can't believe 20 years after Columbine we've circled back around to this nonsense.
Isn't it curious how whenever a killer is supposedly emulating video games, they only choose the ones with guns?? No one ever seems to play Dark Souls and then buy a longsword and start hacking at people. No one ever plays The Last of Us and starts making molotov cocktails and homemade shivs. Both examples of video game violence, yet miraculously never emulated in real life.
"The Second Amendment stems from an ideology that is rooted in the belief that white people have the right to control others with their weapons."
I call bullshit on this. The Second Amendment was put in place only so that the government could not disarm the citizens--race had absolutely *nothing* to do with it whatsoever. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint all gun owners as closet (or overt) racists.
You have to be careful citing The Intercept--sometimes it falls off the left-hand side of the spectrum down into irrationality.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Says nothing about arming the citizens against the government, whatever the intent behind the words. In fact it mentions securing the State!
Personally, I'd like to see some (or any) of the goddamn "well regulated" be implemented instead of the wild west NRA agenda of teenagers buying weapons of war. Gun nuts always focus on the "Shall not be infringed!" and ignore the rest of the words and the rest of the ammendments to the constitution unless they want to cite the 1st as a right that only applies to them.
Trump is apparently supposed to meet today with video game industry representatives about violence in video games and the gun debate. I honestly can't believe 20 years after Columbine we've circled back around to this nonsense.
Isn't it curious how whenever a killer is supposedly emulating video games, they only choose the ones with guns?? No one ever seems to play Dark Souls and then buy a longsword and start hacking at people. No one ever plays The Last of Us and starts making molotov cocktails and homemade shivs. Both examples of video game violence, yet miraculously never emulated in real life.
Video games made in America are played all over the world. But why don't they have the same mass shootings all over the world like they do in America? Maybe it could it be the guns, I wonder. I guess we'll never know.
Yeah we've circled back to violence in movies and video games. Yay. And Trump wants to push abstience and 'just say no' too. Good times.
"The Second Amendment stems from an ideology that is rooted in the belief that white people have the right to control others with their weapons."
I call bullshit on this. The Second Amendment was put in place only so that the government could not disarm the citizens--race had absolutely *nothing* to do with it whatsoever. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint all gun owners as closet (or overt) racists.
You have to be careful citing The Intercept--sometimes it falls off the left-hand side of the spectrum down into irrationality.
Institutionalized white supremacy was the intention as are all of the other reminders and remnants we still struggle and deal with, whether Bubba down the street is actually racist or not. If you honestly think the intended purpose was for a Shay's Rebellion every time someone started griping about taxes, I think you are the one being irrational.
Where would ascribing motives to arguments people make that aren't there fall on your list?? Not only did that video not do anything remotely like what is being suggested,
That's entirely false.
"The Second Amendment stems from an ideology that is rooted in the belief that white people have the right to control others with their weapons"
Also, from the transcript: "The real history of gun laws in the U.S. is not about hunting and it’s not about fighting tyranny. For the most part, if we’re really being honest, it’s been about white people having the right to bear arms and to use them against black people, indigenous people, and other not real Americans."
Where would ascribing motives to arguments people make that aren't there fall on your list?? Not only did that video not do anything remotely like what is being suggested,
That's entirely false.
"The Second Amendment stems from an ideology that is rooted in the belief that white people have the right to control others with their weapons"
Also, from the transcript: "The real history of gun laws in the U.S. is not about hunting and it’s not about fighting tyranny. For the most part, if we’re really being honest, it’s been about white people having the right to bear arms and to use them against black people, indigenous people, and other not real Americans."
Which is simply a description of colonization, slavery and manifest destiny. Is it so hard to imagine the love of guns in this country is tied to how they have been used to overtake and dominate the continent by force??
Anyone see Sarah Chadwick's parody takedown of Dana Loesch's NRATV ad? I'm not on Twitter and can't post it- saw it on FB. I was born in the wrong generation... these kids are amazing.
Is it so hard to imagine the love of guns in this country is tied to how they have been used to overtake and dominate the continent by force??
That would have happened even without guns because it had been happening in other places for millennia at the point of a sword.
*************
Sarah Sanders admitted that the arbitration agreement with Stormy Daniels was "won in the President's favor". *tsk* *tsk* *tsk* She messed up--she admitted that an arbitration agreement exists and that the President was directly involved (well, it happened before he was President, but you know what I mean). She just handed Trump the keys to the bus then laid down in front of it. I give her two weeks before she is out.
Is it so hard to imagine the love of guns in this country is tied to how they have been used to overtake and dominate the continent by force??
That would have happened even without guns because it had been happening in other places for millennia at the point of a sword.
*************
Sarah Sanders admitted that the arbitration agreement with Stormy Daniels was "won in the President's favor". *tsk* *tsk* *tsk* She messed up--she admitted that an arbitration agreement exists and that the President was directly involved (well, it happened before he was President, but you know what I mean). She just handed Trump the keys to the bus then laid down in front of it. I give her two weeks before she is out.
I can't stand her, but the idea that Trump is blaming her for screwing up an impossible situation to lie about consistently is ridiculous. The simple solution here is to not ask your press secretary to tell bald-faced lies about your hush money payment to a porn star. And again, the real issue here is one of election law. If they paid her $130,000 to not talk in the waning days of the campaign, it should have legally been disclosed on Trump's federal campaign finance reports. It wasn't.
Comments
And if you believe most of that is ancient history, I have another very simple question: Where was the NRA when Philando Castile, a black man who was shot an killed by police for no other reason than having the temerity to be a black man who had applied and received a license to carry a firearm?? They said nothing for a month before finally being shamed into a weak statement.
Use that same logic for free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable warrantless seizures. Black Americans didn't enjoy those rights for centuries. Should we repeal the 1st and 4th? Are those who support free speech now "white supremacists" too?
This is the reason I don't listen to Scahill and his fellow Jill Stein Democracy Now lunatics.
On top of that he slanders everyone who supports the second amendment as a "white supremacist" at the end of the video.
I never understood the logic. Abortion, every liberal knows that ban abortion will not prevent a woman to travel to other country and abort in other country or illegally abort, but with guns, a gun ban will magically disintegrate 300m+ guns and prevent everyone from making homemade guns or illegally importing guns...
I call bullshit on this. The Second Amendment was put in place only so that the government could not disarm the citizens--race had absolutely *nothing* to do with it whatsoever. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint all gun owners as closet (or overt) racists.
You have to be careful citing The Intercept--sometimes it falls off the left-hand side of the spectrum down into irrationality.
What on the face of it is odd about this is that there is almost no chance that this type of chemical would be available to or used by terrorists or other criminals - as opposed to national governments. As in the Litvinenko case the choice of weapon seems to have been deliberately designed to send a statement.
There have been quite a few deaths in the UK in recent years of people with Russian connections that have been (at least officially) written off as accidents or suicides. I remember following quite closely the case of Gareth Williams, who was found dead inside a holdall together with a key to a padlock locking the holdall shut, and wondering just how the police managed to conclude that had been an accident. So if Russian authorities were involved in some of these 'accidental' deaths, why have they decided this time to make it so obvious?
I think there is a plausible answer to that question. This case is similar to one not long ago when Kim Jong Un's half-brother was killed with VX nerve gas. It comes down to the desire of states to project power - and that requires that the source of actions is known.
Over time Russia has been getting gradually bolder in the way it conducts international affairs - whether those are in accordance with international law or not. Things that come to mind just off the top of my head include:
- the quasi-legal seizure of foreign-held shareholdings.
- the program of hacking activity to interfere in foreign elections.
- the annexation of Crimea.
- the invasion of Ukraine.
- the war in Syria.
- Putin's recent announcement that Russia has ballistic missiles that can evade defenses.
Note that for some of the above the actions are publicly announced, while in others (hacking, Ukraine, assassinations) Russia publicly denies responsibility. However, in all the above cases the actions seem to be clearly intended to send a message about the power of the Russian state - and that also applies to a lot of what is done domestically (like state-sponsored doping or control of internal elections).
If I lived in one of the Baltic states I would certainly be concerned about the threat from Russia. It's pretty clear that Russia would not be deterred from invading them by international condemnation, so any deterrence must rest on the defense they could muster. It's perhaps also worth tying this point into one of the themes discussed before in this thread, i.e. why Russia would have wanted to support Donald Trump as a candidate. One of the plausible reasons for that is that Trump had stated NATO was obsolete and that countries that wouldn't pay their fair share towards the organisation's costs should be left to defend themselves rather than being able to depend on the NATO commitment to mutual self-defense.
Edit: here's also a comment piece on the difficulties facing the UK government if it did wish to register its disapproval of Russian actions.
The other is saddling everyone who takes a certain position with the worst possible examples of those who share their views, or with the absolute incoherent arguments in favor of that position.
It usually goes "random commentator on MSNBC/Fox made x insane comment, this is what all liberals/conservatives/libertarians believe".
Not only does it show bad faith, but (annoyingly) it sometimes ends up being persuasive to partisan audiences who want to reaffirm the righteousness of their worldview by comparing themselves favorably to those who disagree with them. 2/3 major cable news channels are built on this.
For a concrete example that resulted in the death of a child, we have Tamir Rice. Ohio is an open-carry state. Both of the officers stated they thought Rice was about 20 years old when they saw him. Well if a perceived 20-year old adult visibly has a gun in an open-carry state, how can the first instinct be to EXECUTE that person within 2 seconds rather than ascertain if the gun was being open-carried legally??
https://www.nvp.se/Nacka/Nacka/deras-barn-omhandertogs-efter-misstankt-naringsbrist/
an athletic competition that is rigged??
Isn't it curious how whenever a killer is supposedly emulating video games, they only choose the ones with guns?? No one ever seems to play Dark Souls and then buy a longsword and start hacking at people. No one ever plays The Last of Us and starts making molotov cocktails and homemade shivs. Both examples of video game violence, yet miraculously never emulated in real life.
Says nothing about arming the citizens against the government, whatever the intent behind the words. In fact it mentions securing the State!
Personally, I'd like to see some (or any) of the goddamn "well regulated" be implemented instead of the wild west NRA agenda of teenagers buying weapons of war. Gun nuts always focus on the "Shall not be infringed!" and ignore the rest of the words and the rest of the ammendments to the constitution unless they want to cite the 1st as a right that only applies to them.
Yeah we've circled back to violence in movies and video games. Yay. And Trump wants to push abstience and 'just say no' too. Good times.
"The Second Amendment stems from an ideology that is rooted in the belief that white people have the right to control others with their weapons"
Also, from the transcript: "The real history of gun laws in the U.S. is not about hunting and it’s not about fighting tyranny. For the most part, if we’re really being honest, it’s been about white people having the right to bear arms and to use them against black people, indigenous people, and other not real Americans."
*************
Sarah Sanders admitted that the arbitration agreement with Stormy Daniels was "won in the President's favor". *tsk* *tsk* *tsk* She messed up--she admitted that an arbitration agreement exists and that the President was directly involved (well, it happened before he was President, but you know what I mean). She just handed Trump the keys to the bus then laid down in front of it. I give her two weeks before she is out.