After the Parkland school shooting, I decided to write my elected officials. This is out of character for me because A) I hate elected officials and B) I’m not that great of a writer. My arguments or points are not conveyed clearly. What I wrote was meant to suggest there is perhaps a better, or at least different way of educating children that doesn’t leave them as easy targets. I don’t think I conveyed that point, but I also wanted to avoid rambling. Anyway, I received 2 responses, one from a Republican and one from a Democrat. I also come across a little bit like Judge Napolitano, whom I enjoyed reading most of the time, but some of his articles got a little redundant at times. Here is what I wrote:
“The recent school shooting has brought out the calls for action. The arguments are the same on both sides, “ban assault rifles” on one and “protect my rights” on the other. Which one is correct? Do we ban assault rifles and guns altogether? Do we repeal the second amendment? Who will enforce the law? Will there be a massive policing and forced confiscation? One only needs to look at history to see that will not go well and would likely be the end of America.
What if there was something we could do that did not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, but at the same time protected our children from gun violence in schools? Would we do it? Would we at least entertain the idea?
A school is made up of children from a wide range of backgrounds. Some children are smarter than others, some struggle with certain subjects, some are gay, some are athletic, some are of a different religion, some would rather be doing other things. This diversity is great in any society, but as humans we tend to mock something we view as different. We do this as children and adults. I’m not a psychologist so I don’t know why we do it, I just know it happens. The aforementioned types of children just want to be accepted like everyone else, and when they are not they are made to feel inferior in some way. This may be the cause of emotional issues that lead to these tragedies.
So what if there was a school for your smart child, or gay child, or disinterested child (this was me) where they can be around others like them or get specific help in an area of interest? What about a school for children that have an interest in and accel at science, art, dance, sports, music? Would that not lead to a more confident child to be surrounded by others like him or her sharing similar interests and activities in an environment of encouragement?
Now here comes the most outrageous part – what if these schools were not run by the government but were private schools that the parents could pick and choose to send their kids to? Private schools are too expensive one may offer as a counter argument. I would then counter “What if they weren’t?” How much money does it take to educate a child, $1000 a month? What if it was $500? That’s getting in the car payment range. $250 A month? Less? How can this be done? The good news is it is already being done. It is called the Free Market. As consumers we pick and choose where we spend our money, so why not apply that same concept to education? Parents are already asking for vouchers and a choice in schools, this would open up that possibility to every parent. Educators would then meet this demand with a supply of education, and competition would bring prices down to a balance of cost versus product, or value. We see this in everything else we buy, so why not apply that same concept to education and treat it as a service provided by businesses? Should we at least entertain the idea that there may be a better way?”
First response:
“Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the devastating attack on students and faculty at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. These are terrible events for our nation and we must find appropriate ways to respond.
On the afternoon of February 14, 2018, former student Nikolas Cruz opened fire on students and faculty at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, killing 17 people. Students should be safe at school and those with mental illness should have their needs met. Here are 3 things we should do to help prevent these kinds of attacks:
– We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books. The means making sure U.S. Attorneys and state and local law enforcement officials have the resources they need to keep guns out of the hands of people are not supposed to be able to buy or possess a gun.
– We need to make existing background checks more effective. This is why I’ve cosponsored Senator Cornyn and Senator Murphy’s legislation – the Fix NICS Act – which helps ensure that federal agencies and states get information about individuals who should be prohibited from buying a gun into the national background check system.
– Finally, we must continue to help the large number of Americans suffering from mental illness.
Last Congress, we passed two new laws to help do that. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides federal dollars to states and school districts to help meet the needs of students with mental health disorders. Along with ESSA Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act which makes it easier for those suffering from mental illness to get the care they need and encourages early intervention and the use of the most up to date and evidence-based treatments.
People with good mental health are not causing these incidents, so if we can find ways to diagnose and treat people with mental health issues, that will be an actual solution to the problem. I’m grateful you’ve shared your reactions with me and will keep them in mind as we move forward.”
Second response:
“Thank you for contacting me about gun control.
Mass shootings happen in America far too frequently. Yet Congress has refused to do anything to reduce gun violence, even ideas Americans overwhelmingly support.
House Republican leadership has not allowed a single vote on any gun legislation, even Republican bills, that would reduce gun violence. Democrats even organized a sit-in last Congress to try and force a vote on gun legislation. In fact, Republicans are trying to loosen gun laws. They rolled back Obama-era regulations that limited gun ownership for people with mental health issues. The House also voted to make it easier for veterans who have serious mental health conditions like PTSD and schizophrenia to own a gun and allow people from out-of-state to come into Tennessee with concealed weapons, even if these outsiders have had no training or background checks.
Whether it’s increased security at venues, expanded background checks, allowing objective federal research on gun issues, banning bump stocks like the ones used by the Las Vegas shooter, or even banning military style weapons and high capacity magazines, we should begin seriously debating ways to minimize risk.
I am a gun owner and have my concealed-carry permit. But almost all the gun enthusiasts I know think that Congress can take sensible steps to try to reduce gun violence.
Thanks again for reaching out to me.”
Clearly neither of them read what I wrote, and I probably ended up on a list, but I avoided profanity and insults.
Comments
379 responses to ““Write to your congressmen,” they said. “It’ll be fun,” they said.”
I’d like to congradulate you for wasting your and their time/money. 🙂
Your time writing the letter.
The time of the staffer who added your name and address to the excel spreadsheet used to generate the mail merge.
The money used to frank the letters.
And, your time reading the response.
Your actions have hastened the inevitable collapse of the U.S. government by a microsecond.
Just create a bot that spams their email inbox; not fast enough to cause a crash or imply it’s a DDoS or other such a attack. Just fast enough to tie up their staff from doing anything other than sending form replies to non-existent users.
Hey, we read it, too.
But our attention adds up to barely a rounding error.
This would be a better canned response than either of the two responses received.
“Your actions have hastened the inevitable collapse of the U.S. government by a microsecond.”
Every little bit helps.
My congressperson is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I’d assume anything I write her would go unread unless I attached a check for at least 10 grand.
It would go unread even if you did, is my bet. She has an agenda, and she doesn’t need any moron derailing that, even if they pay up.
Yeah, no surprise. Probably a secretary saying “Hey, we got a letter about the shooting. Should I send the pre-written response?” “Yeah, go ahead and send it.”
Sorry, sugar tits, I don’t have time to read their scrawling today, headed to the golf course to meet with some lobbyists who want to grease the wheels.
Many offices will have some junior assistant do a quick scan to figure out which side of the issue you’re on and keep a running tally for an idea of how popular/unpopular a particular issue is for that district.
Yep. As I understand it, a short phone call where you tell the flunky that answers “My name is X, I’m a constituent of [representative]. [if true: I’ve voted for for this representative in the past/I’ve donated money to this representative’s campaign/I’ve volunteered for this candidate]. I feel very strongly about [whatever] and I will base my future voting choices based on how [representative] votes on any upcoming bills,” is as effective as anything else you can do that doesn’t involve a freezer full of cash or busing a load of unemployed people to their office hold pre-preprinted signs for an afternoon.
Yes, I would say you are wasting your time. For the most part, these are not our representatives, they are just who we voted for to win the lottery, which consists of lots of opportunity for corruption, graft, cronyism, and ability to be a control freak sociopath asshole.
We need to protect people = we need to give me more power, and you less, peasant.
Most of us here probably didn’t vote for them.
They happen too frequently, the lowest ever. We should do more.
Stupid Republicans are wrekers
But it’s for the children. How can you be against the children?
Tide had to put child locks on the pod containers. That’s how.
Look here, Doom wants children to eat detergent pods and die!
Let’s kill him!
*grabs torch and pitchfork*
America needs more locksmiths!
Good article, You write better than I do
Thanks Yusef!
Roseanne relaunch
The woke folk ain’t gonna like this. Light the tweeter mob army, this hate speech must be censored! Let the anti-hate flow!
“In the adult demo, it also trumps Sunday’s blockbuster 60 Minutes episode which featured an interview with Stormy Daniels.”
What? WHAT!? HOW DARE THESE DEPLORABLES NOT WATCH MUH STORMY, STORMY RULES, STORMY GONNA TAKE DOWN THE ORANGE MENACE! WHY CUM THEY DON’T LOVE STORMY!?
Isn’t she seriously, almost autistically anti-Trump? Or am I thinking some other fat slob celebrity?
You might be thinking of Michael Moore. I get them confused, too.
The way to tell them apart is Roseanne is the masculine one.
No. Barr vocally supports Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/arts/television/roseanne-barr-trump.html
And as someone that watched the show and was pleasantly surprised, she hit the progtards where it counts. Oh, there was an attempt to make the show seem balanced by having her proggie sister act the counterpart, but the subjects they covered basically slammed the people that usually want to pretend we live on Fantasy Island with reality. I recommend the show.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-roseanne-revival-skyrockets-stunning-premiere-1097943
Roseanne returned Tuesday after two decades. The ABC sitcom kicked off its revived run with especially promising returns — dominating every other Big Four telecast of the night.
The first two episodes of Roseanne, a full hour at the top of the ABC lineup, won the night by both adults 18-49 and total viewers. The show averaged a 5.1 rating in the key demo and 18.1 million viewers, rising from the first half hour to the next. The first number alone is enough to make Roseanne the highest-rated regularly scheduled scripted show of the last few seasons, since Empire at its peak, as well as the highest-rated sitcom broadcast in over three years.
Strong out of the gate.
Okay, see, I had her confused for Rosie O’Donnell.
Rosanne Barr has some actual talent. Not that I liked everything she ever did.
Ben Shapiro said its still a leftist show because it doesn’t touch on culture issues and portrays Trump supporters as only caring about the economy – not as a backlash against leftist culture.
I don’t know if that’s true – I don’t watch broadcast TV and it blows my mind that people still do. I agree with Ben on about 50-60% of what he says, so I try to take it with a grain of salt.
If it’s a good show and is fair to Trump supporters – then good. Hollywood needs to realize that it would be very lucrative for them to stop shitting all over half of the country.
The legacy networks especially. I have to imagine a lot of their potential viewers come from blue collar households.
Probably because the original show was one of the most realistic portrayals of American family life since Good Times and All in the Family back in the 70’s.
They actually dealt with real issues 85% of Americans could readily identify with
I don’t think Judge Napolitano gets his questions answered, either.
What if someone wrote a letter to their congressman and it went unanswered? What if they took this as a personal snub? What if they became obsessed with this “snub?” What if it lead them to hate the government and become a libertarian? What if I lost my train of thought and couldn’t think of any more questions? What if I just stopped this nonsense?
How did you get in a post of questions before me? Did you use all 10 fingers? Was I slowed because I used my phone? Will I go to hell if I damn your nimble fingers during Holy Week?
I’m my case I might actually get some “work” done.
By “work” I mean shuffling papers around and rewriting documents that will only ever be read by me before they need to be rewritten again.
I’m a gov’t employee incase anyone is still wondering.
Don’t do it!!!!!1!!11!!
It’s like you’re reading my mind…
The proper response to a snub is mass murder.
What if my entire writing repertoire was kyped from the single, only, lone listenable Creed song ?
What if?
Who does? Can we expect our Congresscritters to care about rights? Have they even read the Constitution?
The sad reality is that the people we should have in power, making the decisions and running the country, would never, ever do it – I suspect even if they were to be conscripted – while the ones that actually want it and go through the system to get elected, are the ones we should actively try to keep as far away from the leavers of power as possible.
I have concluded that government would be better – more effective, efficient, and more responsive to the people, while causing a lot less harm in the long term – if we literally just had a lottery system that would pick our reps from a list of people that absolutely didn’t want to have the fucking job.
Same as jury duty, you get picked, you serve a term, then go home.
I got it.
A bicameral legislature.
One house serves 6 year terms is elected and writes laws
The other serves 2 year terms and is appointed by lottery and approves or rejects laws written by the first.
The lottery is comprised of all citizens who own property (real property or a business) in the district who have never run for any public office or held an appointed political position at any level
I like the basic idea, but don’t go too strict with your “never held office” provision. A lot of good people have served on township boards or school boards and never had any desire to go any further. And actually, I bet that rule would trim the eligible pool of citizens quite drastically.
/current Township Supervisor
Fuck Off Slaver.
(I have no idea what a Township Supervisor does)
In my township (population approx 40) not a hell of a lot. Basically make sure the gravel roads get maintained.
Oh, and we are the Tax Equalization board as well. That’s where the Fuck Off Slaver part comes in to play.
A few additions:
The two-year house (call it “The House of Citizens”) can repeal any law on the books.
Serving in the The House of Citizens gets you pay equal to your average pay over the last two years. Probably need some kind of job protection and/or business interruption guarantee as well.
Finally, serving in The House of Citizens should disqualify from any other elected or appointed public office in the future. Anyone who is a government employee is ineligible to serve in The House of Citizens.
*prolonged applause*
You know who else was Just Asking Questions?
The Grand Inquisitor?
Joe Friday?
No, Who?
straffinrun?
Why are you singling me out?
Dave Holden?
Alex Trebek?
He just gives answers.
No, that’s the contestants!
The answer is this guy.
<— ?
A minor update – I did hear from the other senator. Spoiler alert – form letter.
Can you paste it in the comments?
Should I post the form letter (email) I received back from one of my Senators?
It’ll look like a Ken sized post…
Certainly.
Here’s the response from one of my Senators. I still haven’t heard back from the other one (Toomey).
—
Dear Mr. [Sean]:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the Second Amendment and the regulation of firearms. I appreciate hearing from you.
Pennsylvania has a rich tradition of hunting, and I support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns for protection, sporting and collection. But, like many Americans, in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, I believe we need commonsense gun legislation that will help to prevent such tragedies.
The Sandy Hook massacre affected me deeply. The shooter used a military-style assault weapon with magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition. Realizing that he chose this weapon because he wanted to inflict the most damage in the shortest amount of time, and that he would have tried to kill hundreds of children if he could have, led me to reevaluate how we approach gun violence as a Nation. After careful study, I decided to support legislation to close loopholes in the existing background check system, as well as legislation to institute a federal ban on military-style assault weapons and to restrict high-capacity magazines. I voted in favor of these measures, as well as efforts to close a loophole allowing known and suspected terrorists on the Terrorist Watchlist to purchase firearms, when they came before the Senate for consideration in 2013, 2015 and 2016. None of these measures gained enough support to pass the Senate.
As a public official, I believe my colleagues and I have an obligation to enact commonsense reforms that will keep Americans safe and reduce the likelihood of gun violence incidents. We are a Nation of people who come together, roll up our sleeves and solve difficult problems. We can pass smart measures to reduce gun violence while fully respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Please be assured that should the Senate consider legislation affecting firearm regulation, I will have your views in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
“led me to reevaluate how we approach gun violence as a Nation”
So, no common sense then. Because common sense would led you reevaluate why government forces people to be clustered into groups of sitting ducks that they would otherwise not be in.
Common sense would also prompt you to ask why schools are the typical target as opposed to other places children and adults congregate freely like Chuck E Cheese or Pop Warner football games.
Instead, you have your “government is always good” blinders on, which by definition means you are avoiding common sense.
That’s what I should have wrote.
There’s that “military-style” again.
+1911
If that were my goal I’d probably pick a different weapon and method.
You’d make them seek medical treatment in the VA?
+1 Happy Land.
It’s pretty much the same as Sean’s response, and the two I received. It’s like their colluding or something…
The staffers run the show and they’re the ones producing the form letters.
Along with ESSA Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act which makes it easier for those suffering from mental illness to get the care they need and encourages early intervention and the use of the most up to date and evidence-based treatments.
Sounds legit.
Unfortunately the evidence is clear that the psychiatric profession does not identify those who will go on to commit suicide or homicide with any more accuracy than you could with a coin flip. We don’t have the tools to do it or if we do we don’t know how.
That’s the trouble with the “mental health treatment is the answer” people. Yes, some of the mass shooters have shown evidence of psychiatric disturbances in the past, but many have never been diagnosed with any disorder. Some of the shooters have had “red flags” that predicted violence, but many did not.
A severely mentally ill person is unlikely to be able to plan any kind of sophisticated attack. Honestly, the most dangerous people are those who are not mentally ill. Someone who has thought things through and decided that there is a cause that they believe in so strongly that they don’t care if they die is not mentally ill, but is incredibly difficult to stop.
As far as I can tell, the people who think spending on “mental health” will fix things don’t necessarily believe it will lead to mass shooters getting identified. Rather, they seem to think that there is a mass of people, especially young men, who aren’t getting enough love/attention/therapy/guidance. It’s not that we’ll find the would-be shooters before they act, it’s that we’ll never have shooters in the first place because we’ll address everybody’s “issues” before they get to that point.
I don’t really think anyone who believes this knows how to make this happen, which is why the calls are always for more funding rather than more specific actions.
Eh, I think its just pro-RKBA folks looking for a talking point that sounds proactive instead of defensive. They don’t have a specific plan because they don’t care. They don’t take the “allow permitted teachers to carry in class” because MY GOD WHAT WILL DAVID BROOKS SAY???!!!??
Actually, most of the people I’ve seen talk about “mental health” are anti-RKBA or at least “gun rights skeptics” if you will. They acknowledge, tacitly or otherwise, that banning guns alone “isn’t enough” and that something has to be done about the incentives as well. They believe that lack of “common-sense” gun control is an enabling factor, but at least recognize that it’s not causal.
A more effective way of identifying individuals whose behavior indicates a predisposition to violence sounds – superficially – more “reasonable” than a move to eliminate effective tools of defense in the expectation that society can be made “non-violent” in a manner that doesn’t violate personal freedom.
I’m somewhat susceptible to that argument, but of course, just because something sounds reasonable, doesn’t mean it’s possible. Its only merit is that it’s probably more feasible than perfecting mankind by eliminating criminality and violence.
OT: Red meat for the Canadians.
http://archive.is/kRlP8
Sexy gals in flannel are enough to make you stand up and say “Let’s go play hockey you hosers, eh?”
Get oot!
Makes me crave Poutine..
Ask ENB to make you some.
House Republican leadership has not allowed a single vote on any gun legislation, even Republican bills, that would reduce gun violence.
How would it reduce gun violence? It says so right in the bill subsection IV paragraph 3. “Less gun violence after this bill is enacted.” Easy peezy. This law making is fun.
It doesn’t even have to go that far. Just put it right in the name of the bill: “The 2018 Gun Violence Reduction Act”
Needs a snappier acronym.
Something that will abbreviate down to “The 2018 DEATHSTICK Act” or something memorable.
Don’t Ever Attack The Helpless, Sad, Innocent Children you Killer.
SHIT. Forgot the second T.
InnocenT.
SHIT. SHIT. SHIT.
Moar coffee and Tide Pods.
Don’t Ever Attack The Helpless, Sad, ‘Tarded, Innocent Children you Killer
Don’t Ever Attack The Helpless, Sad, Tide-pod-eating, Innocent Children you Killer
I love the insistence that anyone is owed having their bill debated, especially given that representatives are elected, at least in theory, to represent their constituents, but, especially after years of Harry Reid tabling every bill the Republican House sent up.
You cant vote on legislation that doesnt exist, so yeah, he is correct.
Death at Education Receptacles Prevention Act.
“Thank you for contacting me about gun control.
Thanks for confirming our lowest expectations regarding your intelligence and level of engagement.
Also, Mister McGinty, please report back to us on how long it takes for you to get a fundraising letter, now that you’re on the mailing list.
I’m curious about this as well. My only concern about filling out the form online to submit the letter was “I hope they don’t start sending me shit.”
They will.
In a moment of weakness, I wrote my elected reps after Sandy Hook when they were banging around renewing the AWB.
I started getting letters and there was nothing I could do to stop it. I had to move.
Ditto. I get fundraising emails from my house rep and he’s as blue as they come.
They were good, but we don’t need to continue the Average White Band anymore.
You started it.
Next time make the second to last paragraph in your letters to elected officials read “Just kidding. I hope you and your staff all die of your own stupidity.”
Some people in matching uniforms might show up for a visit.
Get oot!
Get oot o’ them jammies!
This diversity is great in any society
May sound ironic considering who I am and where I live, but is this really self evident?
The fun part was when he suggested later in the letter that people be allowed to flock only with people who had similar interests, thus circumventing diversity.
May sound ironic considering who I am and where I live, but is this really self evident?
No. Tolerance of diversity is great (assuming you don’t go overboard and start tolerating grooming gangs or other such vice), and such tolerance is essential in a free society, but diversity in and of itself can often as not be a negative thing as a positive. Diversity means difference, and difference leads to disagreement and dislike, which can escalate into factionalism, strife, and worse. One need only to look at comment boards on the internet to see this, as wherever there is disagreement there is acrimony. This very comment board was nearly torn asunder due to diversity in opinions on pizza, or so I’ve been told (perhaps that was fake news).
I am a gun owner and have my concealed-carry permit. But almost all the gun enthusiasts I know think that Congress can take sensible steps to try to reduce gun violence.
Of course you are. Of course they do.
“I’m a 2nd Amendment supporter, but it’s okay if they ban *those* because I don’t own one.”
This response was from the Democrat. I LOL’d and thought “sure you are.”
The ‘but rule’ applies here
almost all the gun enthusiasts I know
Pretty sure “gun enthusiast” isn’t shorthand for “gun control enthusiast”.
But almost all the gun enthusiasts I know think that Congress can take sensible steps to try to reduce gun violence.
Maybe this is true. Who knows. Owning a gun doesn’t make you an expert on law, economics, sociology, …. There’s a lot of doctors who think “socialized medicine” would be just peachy.
Read an interesting analysis on some blog yesterday. The general jist:
If government’s purpose is to save lives (the “if it just saves one life!” argument) and this is the rationale for outlawing private firearm ownership, then what is the appropriate response by the government to AIDS? What behaviors are most likely to spread the disease? Outlaw anal sex? Create a database of people with HIV/AIDS and include said data in all dating apps? Require people on that registry to carry a card stating their status and make it illegal to enter a relationship without disclosing the card?
Of course all these requirements are absurdly intrusive and most people would not comply; just the same as if you try to outlaw firearms.
A dark vision indeed, but it’s for The Children so…..
If you want to go down that road, you can argue that many more teens are killed by texting while driving than by being shot. So maybe we need common sense phone control. Do not allow anyone under 18 to own a phone.
It’s a dark rabbit hole to go down. Once the government declares itself arbiter of your safety, you might as well just lock everyone up. You’ll have a bed, a roof, 3 squares a day and healthcare. All under the ever watchful eye of the benevolent bureaucracy making sure you don’t get hurt.
What about sex? Will it be like prison? I know some people might like that, but I think I won’t…
City Palace of Mating
Full context:
Pointing out that guns are tools, and like all other dangerous tools, if used by fucking evil or deranged people, can produce ugly results, seems to not register with the people that want gun control. That is because their end goal is not gun control, but gun confiscation. I think most people trying to find reasonable common ground with the gun grabbing crowd fail to comprehend that the end goal always is their need to force a change to reality that is simply impossible. Most of the gun grabber rabble really believe that if people couldn’t own guns the problem would go away.
Evidence that this has not worked – Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New York City, Washington D.C., and so on – always is explained away with the delusion that the criminals that could care less about a law preventing them from having guns and using them on a disarmed population just got their guns somewhere next door when guns were allowed. Even when you show examples of the criminal element being armed to the teeth and fucking over the law abiding disarmed populous in countries like Australia, Brazil, or Germany – where there is no gun ownership outside the elite – the gun grabbers will dismiss your argument that bad people don’t care about laws with some idiotic assertion that this solution where the populous was terrorized by their government and the criminal element was a better outcome than leaving them in the hands of law abiding citizens.
The issue is that the end goal isn’t any sort of security whatsoever – although I have to admit that for a lot of people in the gun grabbing rabble this delusion is the motivator – unless you consider a disarmed, and thus subservient populous, as the end goal. It is not accidental that the gun grabbers also worship at the altar of totalitarian marxism and fascism (even though they falsely mislabel fascism as a disease of the right). Totalitarian movements have a lot more success ignoring the will of the individualists and those that refuse right-think (meaning acceptance of the social justice collectivist agenda in this case, no matter how deadly or horrible it turns out in practice) amongst the people, when said people can’t cause any real trouble. And while these gun grabbers are correct that armed law abiding citizens by themselves can’t hope to fight armed agents of the state, the purpose here isn’t the actual conflict, but deterring it. When the agents of the state know they can get hurt or killed by those they are going to oppress or round up for the camps, they are going to be far less likely to want to play.
My suggestion is to ask the question, “What would you give up, if it would stop a school killing of kids you don’t know? You are asking, demanding that I give up my guns that have never killed anyone because someone, some where has used a similar gun to kill.”
Would you give up your cell phone, not for a day or a week, but forever, if it saved lives in another state? We know that criminals/terrorists use cell phones to communicate their nefarious plans. Many young people die from texting while driving. Flash mobs use their phones to gather 200 people to disrupt an event. How about giving up your phone forever if it would save your friend’s life?
You may say that your particular phone has never killed anyone but is more likely to be used in an emergency to save lives. Is that not also my position with my gun? You might say that there is no evidence that you giving up your phone would save anyone’s life, not a friend or even a remote person in another state or anyone else.
I’ll give up my gun when you give up your cell phone, fair enough?
I tried this line of logic with a prog once only instead of phone I used her cat as an example. Eventually she just said yes, if the collective demanded it of her she’d do it. There is no getting through to people who don’t believe natural rights exist.
Better luck than I had: I once had the gun argument with a couple of prog lawyers (Disclocure: I’ve never owned a gun and fired one on only one occasion). They began their demand for control on the basis of “saving lives.” I then suggested we should ban cars if we wanted to save lives. Their response was that cars weren’t designed to kill but guns were. So, let’s count the logic fails (1) moving goalposts; (2) misstated (or disingenuous) opening argument; (3) failure to comprehend the concept of deterrence.
Yep, I believe that’s the most common prog response: “that’s different, those things [cars, phones, swimming pools, hammers] have a *legitimate* purpose!”
What I never see is progressives recognizing self-defense as a “legitimate purpose”. Nope, the only possible uses of guns are (a) hunting and (b) committing random murders. I’m somewhat disappointed that the anti-anti-gun-control crowd don’t hammer on this point relentlessly.
Oops, one too many anti’s. You get the idea.
If you had used one more we could call you the…*dons sunglasses*…Anti-thrice.
YYYEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
I would boo that, but it’s a just punishment.
Their response was that cars weren’t designed to kill but guns were.
Yet, oddly, more people are killed by cars than guns. If we want to save lives, shouldn’t we look at what actually takes lives, rather than what was merely “designed” to take lives?
And that’s not even going down the rabbit hole of what “designed” to kill even means. From what I can tell, the intent of most gun designers was to make a bunch of money by selling a lot of guns. They wouldn’t mind at all if their guns never killed anyone, so if the intent of the designer isn’t to have their design kill people, I’m not sure how you get to guns were designed to kill people.
Come on RC, you want progressives to start looking at results instead of intent? Where would that get them?
“In the time we’ve spent arguing, over 200 gun owners around America have successfully stopped a violent personal attack upon themselves, their families, and strangers. Often, these people are the poor and minorities, Why do you want poor people and minorities to suffer from needless violent attacks?”
Maybe if there was a letter you could force them to attach to their clothing so everyone could know. Perhaps an “A” for AIDS, should be red to as it is found in blood.
Orange for Semi-AIDS and red for Full-AIDS?
I can’t remember where i came across it (it may have been “Discipline and Punish”, it may have been something else)… but someone once pointed out that the purpose of the “Census” and the invention of proper Executive Bureaucracy were all sort of roughly timed around the period of Medieval Plagues.
(*i am aware that there were many other prior historical census; i think even the Egyptians, Romans had them; the point of the observation was about the link between ‘census-taking’ and making that information functional part of government bureaucracy. as a form of power-expansion and micromanagement, basically)
basically – authorities (kings) for a long time had no need to know identities of their subjects, since most owned nothing and had no particular rights. you didn’t really even need to *count* them unless it was for potential future mustering for an army. As long as you knew there were “x able bodied men” in Y county, then fine, that will do.
When plagues came in the middle-ages, suddenly it became more important to track people, and determine ‘who had been exposed’ and who hadn’t. Suddenly you got your village attached to your name (so everyone knows whose subject you are, what tax collector was supposed to be responsible for you, etc.,) and records were being kept on who your household was/whether they’d been exposed too, and who might be receive title to your property in the event you suddenly dropped dead, as was happening frequently, everywhere.
Basically, it was the phenomenon of pestilence that gave authority the sudden right to “force people to remain in 1 place, or to track your movement, or to impose all sorts of documentation-demands on people to verify property rights” It gave birth to an entire conceptual infrastructure of ‘population control’ which has hitherto never really existed.
Not sure how accurate that all is, but its an interesting argument at least. Even if it wasn’t really plague that ‘invented’ those things, it was the motivating idea which made them far more ‘actionable’, iow.
I
Shit, the plague got him mid-post.
How long have you been residing in this thread, citizen?
“If government’s purpose is to save lives”
That’s not its purpose.
Absolutely agreed. I’m just taking the prog argument to its logical conclusion.
Sure they do. This is a variant of the, “I’m not racist, some of my friends are black” argument.
If I don’t have any black friends, would that make me not racist?
Don’t be silly; you’re a white male, you’re racist no matter what you do.
Especially if you have no black friends, but especially if you do.
I don’t have any friends, so……panracist?
You’re not really a racist if you hate everyone equally.
…….get off my lawn.
That’s why I’m an 8w7
I am a gun owner and have my concealed-carry permit. But almost all the gun enthusiasts I know think that Congress can take sensible steps to try to reduce gun violence.
In other words, “I have a right to protect myself by any means necessary. But, you peasants are expendable.”.
That is the one argument that really gets the gun grabbers to make bizarre contortions.
If you don’t mind my asking, who are your reps?
My reps are Smith and Wesson. Not really. I carry a walther.
Sturm and Ruger.
Those two have been in my pants
Not these two?
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/19870f78923401bb3a67c5ae614d6a92.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=600
THIS IS MY WEAPON, THIS IS MY GUN…
ONE IS FOR SHOOTING, AND ONE IS FOR FUN!
EEEEEEW!
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and Jim Cooper.
Ditto…gives me the sadz…
Ok I’m trying this out here, maybe it will fall flat but it was fun to do. I just did some word substitutions and it seems like the Brawndo debate and debating gun control are perfectly analogous.
Joe: For the last time, I’m pretty sure [gun law’s won’t reduce gun violence].
Secretary of State: But [gun law’s] got what [people want]. It’s got [common sense regulations].
Attorney General: So wait a minute. What you’re saying is that you want us to [respect people’s constitutional rights].
Joe: Yes.
Attorney General: [Rights]? Like [what we say they can own]?
Joe: Well, I mean, it [doesn’t really work that way], but, yeah, that’s the idea.
Secretary of State: But [gun laws] got what [people want].
Attorney General: It’s got [common sense regulations]..
Joe: Okay, look. The [existing laws have no measurable effect on reducing gun violence], so I’m pretty sure that the [gun laws are] not working. Now, I’m no [expert], but I do know that if you [respect the constitution], [we all can prosper].
Secretary of Energy: Well, I’ve never seen no [people][prosper] out of [us saying they can have stuff].
Secretary of State: Hey, that’s good. You sure you ain’t the smartest guy in the world?
Joe: Okay, look. You wanna solve this problem. I wanna get my pardon. So why don’t we just try it, okay, and not worry about what [a vocal minority demands]?
Attorney General: [Gun law’s] got [people want].
Secretary of Energy: Yeah, it’s got [common sense regulations].
Joe: What are [common sense regulations]? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: It’s what they use to make [gun laws].
Joe: Yeah, but why do they use them to make [gun laws]?
Secretary of Defense: ‘Cause [gun laws] got [common sense regulations].
Whoa. That actually works really well.
I guess circular reasoning is circular reasoning no matter what subject you apply it to.
You have just demonstrated that we are already living in Idiocracy.
^This guy gets it
Figured that out a long time ago..
I can’t read this because every time i see an apostrophe misused i want someone to be tied to a mast and flogged.
this casual disregard for order and discipline simply cannot stand.
Yes, it definitely would have benefitted from some proof reading, I was rudely interrupted in the middle of writing it with some actual work and rushed to hit “Post comment.” I humbly submit to the flogging.
Also I blame my public-school education
What about incorrect use of “whom”?
Misusing apostrophes is a mortal sin. Incorrect use of who/whom is venial sin.
The latter requires better-instruction. The former requires immediate and severe punishment to ensure others are warned against such folly.
But, whom will give the instruction?
And then I misuse a comma instead of an apostrophe.
*Hang’s head in shame*
There might just be a person who hypercorrects to “whom” when “who” would be both correct and intuitive…
At what point do you tell them you can talk to guns and they tell you that people should have them?
That analogy might not work in this case, if you told people TEH GUNZ spoke to you they’d be demanding you be locked away in the internment camps for terminally evil literal Hitlers.
“I hope they don’t start sending me shit.”
Haha, good one.
The one question I’d like answered is: How is someone who has convinced themselves to commit mass murder going to be deterred from illegally obtaining a gun?
A narrowed gaze?
*nods gravely*
That magic of lawz stoopid!
I honestly believe that the leaders of the gun confiscation movement know damned well this is exactly hoe the rabble thinks, but what they really want is to make sure the law abiding citizens don’t have a means to exact a toll on them when they finally start fucking them over hard.
Exactly right. The reason someone wants you defenseless is that they dont want you to have any power over them. These politicians dont want us to have power over them for a reason and if you list the possible reasons none of them are good.
BAN CARZ!
Australia or Hitler.
Now you have hit on the reason some people yell “false flag” at events like the Parkland school shooting. The worst mass-murder have used box-cutters and airliners, dynamite, and fertilizer bombs. If the Las Vegas guy had taken one of his planes and crashed it into the concert crowd at a low angle, far more people would have been killed. The jihadi in Nice killed 86 and injured 434 with a truck.
If I was trying to generate maximum carnage in a single event, it probably wouldn’t involve a gun.
Exactly! If your objective is body count and mayhem, guns are not the best way to do this. They might have a more shocking response and give you the 15 minutes of fame, but that is because some patently evil totalitarian cunts hoping to milk tragedy to disarm the law abiding citizenry standing in their way of progtopia make it so.
I could rack more bodies by just using the shit you find under the kitchen counter of every American house to concoct some seriously deadly shit, for example. I am also surprised nobody has just stolen a gasoline or natural gas delivery truck yet and used that to rack up bodies. That is, until you stop and think about it, and then realize the people committing these horrendous crimes do it because they are nihilists on a mission. And the sad fact is they are nihilists created primarily because of the effects that the changes forced by the very ideology of the gun grabbers have foisted on people. When you believe you are special and others are why your life sucks, making life meaningless, it is easy to decide you need to prove your perception that this is reality.
I was just watching an episode of Danger Man and some socialists wanted to kill a president of some shithole and Drake (!) said “Nah, even if you’re an expert shot you might miss and he might have bullet proof glass. And they’ll know where the shots came from. What you want to do is put a bomb under the road – the odds of success are way better”
Even the 9/11 killers werent trying for maximum loss of life. Crashing the planes into the stadiums on a Saturday while both Michigan and Tennessee were having home games would have done the trick.
I think there are a fair number of useful idiots who believe that if you just try hard enough, you can wave the magic wand and make all the guns disappear so that nobody, even the bad guys, can get one.
You know, just like we’ve been able to do with drugs.
Screwed up the threading. Trying again.
I am a gun owner and have my concealed-carry permit. But almost all the gun enthusiasts I know think that Congress can take sensible steps to try to reduce gun violence.
In other words, “I have a right to protect myself by any means necessary. But, you peasants are expendable.”.
I think if we all try we can crack the top 50.
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
Darn it! beaten by the Kyrgyz Republic again!
“Laws for thee but not for me”
OT: The difference between art and propaganda.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/planned-parenthood-need-transgender-undocumented-disney-princess-whos-abortion/
It worked for Marvel. Their sales have been SKYROCKETING since they made their comics a platform for every SJW cause you can think of.
Art or propaganda? NSFW or SFW?
After subjecting us to that, I wish that someone would club you in the back of your head.
And then club me.
Ditto… WTF???
Jebus the Japs are weird.
Do progressives do their damnedest to fulfill stereotypes about progressives or do their critics just jump the gun? It seems invariable that every joke or exaggeration made at the expense of progressives is inevitably proven accurate.
‘We Need’ a Transgender, Undocumented ‘Disney Princess Who’s Had An Abortion’
Transgender…who’s had an abortion. Planned Parenthood isn’t doing wonders for my confidence in their understanding of women’s health issues.
They are just the eugenics arm of the progressives. They are fully on board with the whole prog platform.
Well, yeah. But, you’d at least think they’d make a point of not botching basic anatomy that way.
How about a Disney princess who builds a successful commercial business from the ground up and goes on to provide jobs for a bunch of ungrateful slobs?
PS: I saw that tweet making the rounds last night and what struck me most was that it was a really weird thing for a government-funded health care service provider to be tweeting out over their official account.
Did they say what they needed them for?
Have disingenuous argument, will travel
Esquire writer wants the Second Amendment repealed, too. He even goes so far as to pull this gem out of his ass:
This [repeal of the 2nd] was even floated by Karl Rove, the Republican operative who masterminded George W. Bush’s campaigns, after the massacre at Mother Emanuel church in Charleston:
“Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.”
There should be a name, if not an award, for such an egregious mischaracterization of something somebody else said.
And then-
All that said, there is political utility in staking out a position on the far end of the spectrum. Just ask Republicans. On gun rights alone, the NRA and its Republican lackeys have adopted the position that any restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional and oppressive—and at the same time, that no gun restrictions will work, because criminals will still break the law.
(The latter, it bears repeating, is an argument against all laws. Laws are meant to construct obstacles to, and institute penalties for, bad behavior. The goal is to deter it, not prevent it from happening anywhere, ever. That someone robbed a bank is not evidence we should just give up on having laws against robbing banks. What if we tried passing better laws? As for the former, the Constitution specifically outlines how to amend it, meaning the Founders did not intend for it to be a sacred text that could never be changed. That’s why we’ve amended it 17 times since.)
Since laws against robbing banks have proven not entirely successful, maybe we should outlaw money.
I’m open to seeing the author’s analysis of the downside of outlawing bank robbery.
We had a congressperson tour our facility today and then stick around for a “town hall” meeting afterwards.
This person opened with “It’s always great to talk to the people and hear what’s important to you” or some such nonsense. A few of my fellow employees then asked some scripted questions, two of which completely fumbled the wording to the point of nonsensicalness. Each was met with “I think what you meant was…” followed by a planned answer.
Another employee then asked an unscripted, well-stated question regarding general voting ethics by local government members, which was especially relevant given this congressperson’s status on a specific committee. The response was effectively five minutes of “That’s a great question for your county and local officials.”
I don’t understand how these people aren’t so embarrassed by events like this and what was described in the article to ever show their faces in public. Their transparency is just absurd.
They count on the population being too busy trying to keep their heads above water to notice they are being fucked over without the benefit of even a reacharound.
They’re immune to any sort of shame or self awareness. If they weren’t, they would have gutted themselves a long time ago.
Nice handle.
Thanks. It’s a metaphor for a bunch of cats.
Oh…now I get it! Thanks, Tulpa!
Dear Senator
Rober Menendez Cory Booker
Dear Representative
Josh GottheimerFuck it.
What does this have to do with Title IX?
http://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/lawsuit-kindergartener-sexually-assaulted-by-classmates-03-27-2018
I’ll see your thoughtfully constructed and perfectly readable example and raise you one…ummm…whatever the hell this is:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sean-penn-bob-honey-who-just-do-stuff-review_us_5ab9a1bee4b008c9e5fa89a2#click=https://t.co/4pcGHVng73
That is….hard to believe. I knew the guy was nuts but, good God.
Would work better as a graphic novel.
“Reasonable”
For the longest time, Democrats have called for incremental changes to our gun laws. They want to expand universal background checks, institute waiting periods, and, on the “extreme” end, ban semiautomatic weapons. This has gotten them exactly nowhere. What if there was a Freedom Caucus-like group in the Democratic Party—without the complete detachment from reality—that argued for outright repeal of the Second Amendment? As Stephens put it in his op-ed, repealing the Second Amendment doesn’t necessarily mean ending gun ownership.
———
Repealing the Second Amendment would simply make it easier to pass restrictions on gun ownership, as Stephens suggests. It should be possible under the amendment—two of the first three words of it are “well regulated”—but constant legal action from the NRA and others has made that impossible. That culminated with the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, which, in a bit of conservative judicial activism, essentially established the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment more than 200 years after its passage. Much like with Citizens United and the flood of corrupt, unaccountable money it has allowed into our politics, the Supreme Court has exacerbated a problem the rest of us must now solve.
Yeah. The Supreme court conjured “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” right out of thin air, two hundred years after the fact.
Dumbass mistates what well regulated meant at the time of ratification. Hint: doesn’t mean laws to hinder firearm ownership or lawful use.
I always love to ask people what “regulate” means. Then I tell them to look it up in a dictionary and when they do they go ” It says, ‘To make regular.’ What does that mean?”
At the time of ratification, “well regulated” meant “in good working order”. A watch that kept good time was said to be well regulated.
Exactly. A “we’ll regulated militia” would be ordinary men able to load, aim, and fire their personal gun from group commands without panicking while under fire without protection. Aka regular practice and private ownership of warfare weapons.
If only there was some sort of membership organization that was originally formed to ensure people had regular practice with weapons of war in response to a long, brutal conscript war where the accuracy of the common soldierly was as low as 1000 shots per kill.
That Congress should be force-fed Ex-Lax?
I was going to make that point.
The only time you hear ‘regular/regulated’ used in its former sense is for #2s.
When grandma asked it you’re “regular”, it means more than if you can set your watch by your bowel movements (q.v. German toilet ‘shelves’ etc)
What if there was a Freedom Caucus-like group in the Democratic Party—without the complete detachment from reality—
Pot. Kettle. How does that go again?
Fuckin’ bring it. Go for repeal. I’ve been waiting a long time for this shit, and I welcome it. No more will they be able to belch the lie “No one’s trying to take away your guns!” Drop that mask, baby.
All but the dumbest / most senile realize that repeal is a non-starter.
Death by a thousand cuts, and pray someday to control SCOTUS. They needn’t ever much around with a Constitutional solution, but then, why sully their record?
Still my favorite piece in the “bring it on” genre, by Charles CW Cooke:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/
He’s correct up until the enforce it bit. It works even better if there isn’t organized door to door confiscation. That illegal gun is a just another felony that can used against you, and there’s no way for you to lawfully use it.
A fair point, I suppose that non-confiscation would be better from the perspective of those cynically pushing gun control as some form of political power grab. But for those who are sincere in their hearts and their tiny, tiny little brains about really for-real eradicating “gun violence” even from random psychopaths, you gotta actually get the guns or you didn’t accomplish anything.
Right. Look at Australia. They estimate some dismal compliance rate; like <20% right?
But to be fair, it’s not necessary to have a high compliance rate. All those former legal gun owners are – by definition – criminals.
If that results in making those (formerly law-abiding) individuals less likely to use weapons, the incidence of firearms use declines. A gun wrapped in oilcloth and caked in Cosmolene hidden under the dunny is nearly as effectively “confiscated” as one that willingly handed in last week.
Thought experiment:
The FedGov magically retroactively outlaws AR-15s tomorrow.
In response a “women’s march-esque” group of several hundred thousand marches on DC with ARs.
What action does the FedGov take?
They take photographs.
They get the news to cast it as a mass act of “civil disobedience”, and they spend some time indexing and identifying everyone they can.
Facebook will be encouraged to be good citizens and help.
And then one night, some years from now, you’ll be picked up for a traffic violation.
What action does the FedGov take?
Waco round 3 ?
“Nah, actually, we’re cool with it. Greater good, and all that” /ACLU 3 years after C. W. Cooke wrote his rant
Those darkies should have known better than to arm themselves.
Sadly I think you’re right about that part being a bit of a reach.
Although, when the door-to-door searches start resulting in incidental drug arrests and deportations, maybe them might give them a tiny twinge of a second thought.
I’d be fine with this. If they want to self-immolate, who am I to stop them?
Ranted about this last night. “Public servant” doesn’t like getting anything other than a full response. Just like his staffers give to anyone who writes in. Except that ignores the fact he supposedly works for and is answerable to his constituents, unlike a private organization that has no obligation to respond in any way to a mere senator. DIAF Wyden, you are not our aristocracy.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article207007989.html
So they are gonna run with the NRA is in league with Putin canard. Good.
I could write to Senator Dick Durbin or Senator Tammy Duckworth……fuck.
The person who represents my area in the House is Mike Quigley……fuck.
I’m better off just ranting and raving on Glibs.
I hate Duckworth but I might have respect for her if she would take off a leg and bang it on the desk during a Congressional hearing once in a while.
Satire has become impossible.
You think they’re expensive now, just wait till they’re free, dummies.
What the fuck man? Feminists want the evil male patriarchy to not have any influence on their lives until shit needs to be paid for.
It’s like the response to the SC ruling on Hobby Lobby: “Stay out of my personal life choices! Now, give me money to pay for my personal life choices.”
In the ’60s civil rights activists had to risk death to fight for an end to lynchings and the right to fair representation.
In ’17 civil rights activists have to risk ridicule to fight for free pussy napkins.
So brave.
Years ago I got into a discussion about Occupy Wall Street’s tactics and obviously I argued that not only their platform is stupid but also their tactics aren’t even that effective. I used the Civil Rights Movement as an example and one of the folks in the group lectured me about how wrong I was. The person who decided to lecture me was this lily white girl from the North Shore area of Suburban Chicago who was convinced that I didn’t know what I was talking abou,t even though my parents was born and raised in Mississippi during the 50’s and 60’s and actually saw some of this shit live.
Huwhite femalesplaining – it’s the worst.
And it wasn’t that I thought because she was white, she couldn’t correct me about the Civil Rights Movement. It was that she was sooooo fucking wrong and was completely dismissive of my parents and grandparent’s experience during that period because it didn’t match up to her ideology.
Your problem is that you lack empathy with the empathic, you monster.
One of the Iron Laws – The less you know about something the easier it looks. I would add – “and the stronger your opinion on the subject”.
Try pointing out that the shit is expensive because of Toxic Shock Syndrome regulations.
Then point out that the stuff is free in Venezuela.
Or hand her some of the rags you use while changing your oil and say she can have em for free.
You mean her oil.
ZING!
I am in the go, so I didn’t see off anyone answered this.
Your congressman’s office registers your response night tally. They mark you down under the issue you contacted them about and mark for or against. That is all.
On issues of import, there will be organized phone banks and letter writing campaigns.
I was involved in a three year fight to get some arcane business regulations passed into law so the insurance industry would leave us alone. We set up dialers with a hundred people at a time calling all of the congressional offices. We hand copied letters. We even visited constituent services offices. In almost every case they just marked it down without comment.
Except when I went to my representatives office. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’s staff wasn’t too keen to talk with me because of my “white ass”. So I had to go home and bring my wife back so they would talk to me. Then they said that they were just going to vote which ever way John Lewis said to.
That was a frustrating day…
“Then they said that they were just going to vote which ever way John Lewis said to”
Who was only voting the way he was told to by his donors and his focus groups.
OT: MGTOW – pathetic failures or prophets?
Neither.
I’ve never found the MGTOW movement to be foolish or contemptible. Their underlying diagnosis was always somewhat correct, it’s just an awfully harsh prescription they’re writing for themselves.
I tend to agree with this. It’s possible for anyone to get screwed over or suckered, but it’s about having the strength of character to recognize when a specific woman is disingenuous or just a bad person that you walk away.
MGTOW always struck me as cutting off their nose to spite their face.
^Joking aside this. I haven’t looked deeply into the movement but as an almost middle ages single man I could be considered an adherent. I’m not going to sell my soul for a mate. That being said I’m not going to preclude myself from romance or a long-term relationship.
I think a lot of them are doing it as a form of protest of unfair courts and society’s treatment of men in general – the risk minimization strategy is secondary as far as I can tell.
That being said, I think its a little silly to deny yourself all of the fulfilling things that can come along with a successful romantic relationship. You have to be careful with everyone you get into a long-term relationship with, whether it be in business or your personal life. You’re always working with incomplete information, too. I try to make a quick judgement when I’m on a date, and sometimes I’ve almost literally run away from people after a first date (I just walked really, really fast) because I could tell they were insane.
Why not both?
Had to look that up. Unless you really, REALLY like jacking off, I don’t see the appeal. Just be selective in regards to who you spend your time with.
One of my (female) friends is a late-20’s New York resident and we talk quite a bit about the contemporary dating scene, because I’ve been away from that shit for a very long time. She’s quite up-front about the issue.
Yes, presentable young men in NYC should be having a great time. It’s a buyers’ market. Women are significantly in oversupply, but guys aren’t buying. When I put it to her that this was the whole ‘men on strike because of XBox etc’ she laughed and told me that if I knew the women she knew who were looking for men, I’d know exactly why men prefer Pornhub and a large box of Kleenex.
Go find Cassie Jaye’s “The Red Pill” sometime. Bear in mind, the project started out as a feminist project and the director changed direction as it were before the first footage was taken.
Maybe it’s just that I was exceptionally lucky. Not that my marriage is perfect, but we have a minimum of the kind of silly conflicts that most people seem to talk about. What static we have is almost entirely financial.
Only knew each other 5 months when we got married, too, so I’d be lying if I said I approached marriage cautiously. Just dumb luck, I guess.
If you fish in the right pond, you’re almost guaranteed a keeper. If you fish in an industrial sludge pool, you’re gonna catch old tires and heroin needles.
+1
Found my wife at a religious function.
Our fights usually come down to “You are acting like an asshole, go get better antidepressants,” (Spouse A to B) and “Your emotionally abusive mother fucked you up and your overreacting to a normal thing I did.” (Spouse B to A).
We’ve got one more fight brewing, ironically, that’s theological. She’s a biblical literalness and a YEC. I am… what’s the word… not a fucking idiot. Child Unit Alpha is currently reading the bible and now we need to explain to him how to interpret things…
Young Earth creationist?
Yes
Luck. Selectivity. Ability to gauge another person’s character and not lie to yourself. Preparedness to compromise.
Not all women are a nightmare. Sometime us guys are.
But some guys genuinely do get burnt, and burnt bad. And they’re ripe for MGTOW.
Preparedness to compromise IMO is easily the most important thing, and it ties into how serious you are about marriage. I went into marriage intending it to be for life and determined to do everything I could to make it work. A lot of people SAY they are willing to do anything to make their marriage work, but few truly live up to that in my view. If you get married with the notion in the back of your mind “Well, I think this is who I want to spend my life with, but if I change my mind in a few years, no biggie. I can just get out of it” then that’s more likely to be exactly what happened.
Just my $0.02. We’re coming up on 15 years, so we’re not rookies but not quite at the point that I could claim some level of real authority on the subject, IMO.
While there are shitty people everywhere, I’m guessing that this may have something more to do with location than anything else.
Maybe I’m just ornery, but as a lifelong Westerner, I’ve never gotten along that well with people who are:
A) Originally from BosWash
B) Chose to live there
(present company (mostly) excluded)
Speaking for myself, dating and/or marrying what I see as the “typical NYC woman” sounds like a one way ticket to Hell.
Yes I’m collectivizing. Go eat a rock.
Well, the reason that NYC is – I think – a good example is that all those women? They come from all over the US. Maybe being in NYC turned so many of them that way – it’s quite possible – but the combination of women from all over the US, the place itself, the social environment (?) and the oversupply are likely to all be contributing factors.
Maybe the environment just turns NYC into ground-zero for real-world “Mean Girls” cliques. Let’s not forget “Sex and the City”. I think there’s probably some relevance there too.
That’s true; and many people end up in big cities for career advancement. However, the perception of the NYC social scene I believe attracts a certain type of person within the marriageable age demographic. Absent some other pressing reason for being in NYC other than “making it”, I have a hard time seeing myself getting along with such a woman.
That may say more about me than them, however.
“MGTOW ”
They had those 3 good songs and that was it.
And it wasn’t that I thought because she was white, she couldn’t correct me about the Civil Rights Movement. It was that she was sooooo fucking wrong and was completely dismissive of my parents and grandparent’s experience during that period because it didn’t match up to her ideology.
She read about it in a book, okay?
She
read about it in a bookwrote, like, a whole page of notes about it in class, okay?Intent:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Means:
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.
The purpose of the 2nd is to ensure that the people have access to weapons of war so that they may abolish the state (by armed revolution) if necessary.
If I send this to my Representative and two Senators, will the feds pay me a visit?
So if you had the money and it were legal what weapon of war would you like to have? M-1 tank, mortars, F-16?
Tank for sure.
Mortars: too random and inaccurate; also leaves you too open for counter attack.
F-16: too much skill required to operate.
You have quite a few options for tanks.
AAA, too
How about a MiG-29?
For aircraft I would buy American. Still, Where did I put that winning lottery ticket?
If you need to deploy troops, move cargo, or house a cannon on an aerial platform, here’s a low milage C-130
A-10 Warthog
Split the difference and get an AC-130
Nice
Mk-19
ICBM.
^^^I’m changing my answer to this.
Yep. Recreational McNukes.
X-ray glasses. And don’t try to tell me they don’t have them.
The Constitution also prescribes a process by which it can be amended.
If they are so convinced that their ideas are popular, then let them try to do so. However, eliminating 2A does *not* eliminate the natural right to bear arms, it only eliminates the government’s specific enumeration of said right and allows venal and tyrannical humans to try and usurp it. Operative word being “try”.
That would be “alter”.
It’s the “abolish” part that I was examining.
MGTOW – pathetic failures or prophets?
I am neither a failure nor a prophet. I’d rather sleep alone than put up with a lot of unnecessary drama and bullshit. And I’m definitely not going to beg somebody to “love” me.
Do you openly identify as a MGTOW?
I think there’s a difference between being single because of well considered choices, and openly identifying with a movement with particular prescriptions for life. I could be wrong, though.
Yes, there would seem to be a lot of room between “I’m not putting up with some chick’s shit just because I want to get laid” and “I am deliberately avoiding women going forward”
Most guys who self-identify usually have a precise personal reason for being part of the movement. Nearly always, because they’ve been burnt. Precautionary principles don’t come into it – it’s a reaction to their experience (which may be a poorly calibrated reaction, but we’ll ignore that for a moment). So, from their point of view, their MGTOW identification is a well-considered choice. The value of the movement is in seeking other people as a community that you can warn.
Like Alcoholics Anonymous, the unity of a team helps keep the members true to their goal.
“Like a cult, the unity of a team helps keep the members true to their goal.”
FIFY.
Not everyone thrives on misanthropy.
Life sometimes provides us with experiences that are so significant that we seek out the company of people who have suffered a similar event.
*takes another bitter swing of life-numbing firewater*
swig*
Christ, I’m an asshole!
Exactly. I’m not devoted to celibacy but I am certainly not going to engage in a one sided pursuit of someone who expects me to do/say all the right things at the right time to be worthy of their affections. Romance is a two way street. I quickly lose interest when it’s clear that I’ll be expected to jump through hoops to prove my worth while they make no real effort. Not every woman acts this way but in my experience the lion’s share of them do.
I find common ground with you on this. I’m fine with romantic gestures to show that you care about your SO, but its a two-way street. And the idea that “well you get sex for the gestures” is stupid. Sex is pleasurable for both parties (or at least it should be if you’re doing it right… unless you’re into other activities… ah you get what I’m saying)
I’m more into women that think the whole jumping through hoops for each other thing is dumb – and there are plenty of them out there. They get scooped up fast though for good reason.
Somehow I won the lottery 42 years ago.
Life imposes drama and bullshit on couples. The secret is to not generate drama and bullshit within the relationship.
Agreed. OTOH, it looks like you were more aware than lucky… It’s difficult for females and males who are prone to drama and bullshit to conceal that tendency for very long.
We racked up # 44 yesterday. Mrs Fourscore and I have always allowed breathing room for each other. We have sort of agreed upon responsibilities and division of labor that seem to work out well. I don’t tell her what to do and vice-versa. It helps that we are comfortable enough financially that that part of life isn’t a problem. It wasn’t always like that however.
The first 20 were tough. There is never enough time in the day or money in the checkbook when kids are in the house.
Once they’re out, life settles into the balance of two people getting along without stepping on each others toes.
Absolutely
Conditional affection is learned behavior. It’s one thing for a parent to say “You don’t get a new bicycle unless you improve your math grade.” But it’s quite another for a parent to say “I’m not going to kiss you goodnight because you didn’t get an A on your math test.”
And that’s not even going down the rabbit hole of what “designed” to kill even means. From what I can tell, the intent of most gun designers was to make a bunch of money by selling a lot of guns. They wouldn’t mind at all if their guns never killed anyone, so if the intent of the designer isn’t to have their design kill people, I’m not sure how you get to guns were designed to kill people.
If I were CEO of a gun manufacturer, I’d be ecstatic to know there are so many people out there who are willing to buy a gun and never shoot it, or even take it out of the box. “Collect the whole set!”
Do you openly identify as a MGTOW?
Absolutely not. If the extremely attractive and vivacious waitress (in a VERY short dress) who served me breakfast in Bozeman a couple of days ago offered to take me home, I’d go.
In a fucking heartbeat.
How well did you tip her?
Just the tip
If I send this to my Representative and two Senators, will the feds pay me a visit?
Be sure to put a Gadsden Flag stamp on the envelope.
Excellent idea.
Will I be able to post on Glibs from the penitentiary?
I’m guessing not, but they probably will give you a chance to introduce and describe all your “friends”.
OT: All roads would seem to lead to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele
John goes down the Rabbit hole…
“John|3.28.18 @ 1:19PM|#
Did the woman killed in that accident consent to be the subject of a tech industry beta test that would cost her her life? I don’t think so. So, where do the tech companies get the right to test these cars on the public? You say they will someday be safer but unless you have magic powers to see the future, there is no guarantee of that. Moreover, until you do a lot more testing than this, there is no way to say for certain they are safer now. So, what gives the tech companies the right to test them in public when the risk is unknown and the people who are being placed at risk haven’t consented to be so?”
He must not have heard what happened to your Kia.
We need common-sense autonomous vehicle control.
Ban assault pseudo-AI controlled automobiles!
We all knew John would sell libertarianism down the river just so he could score points of law.
Tech companies get rights from God, just like all of us OK. But if he wants to be pedantic, the state gave the tech company the right to test the car in public.
John has actively said he’s not a libertarian for as long as I can remember. His insights often align with libertarian perspectives, but he’s not dishonest about his political affiliation.
I certainly don’t know where else he hangs out, but if he’s trying to make his points on free-markets-n-liberty websites he’s really just a slightly more coherent version of Tony, Shreek, Tulpa, etc. A troll.
Tony and shrike are in the blind squirrel/stopped clock category. Every once in a while they say something right, although it’s never interesting or well-thought out, and their intellectual capacity is perpetually stuck at middle and elementary school levels, respectively.
John is in the “sometimes very insightful, sometimes batshit crazy, always a flaming asshole” category. It’s a party of 1, really. The first part is why he was invited to comment here by some, and the last part is why he was ultimately banned from here.
Tulpa is just a shit-stirrer. He’s smarter than Tony or shrike but no more self-aware.
Whatever, Tulpa.
John is a contrarian. Having that as a tool in your toolbox is often helpful, but for John it seems like it’s the only tool he knows how to use.
Kinda like a bipolar girl I once dated. Sometimes she’s good company, sometimes she’s not. But when she is good company, I tend to forget that it could just be part of a manic episode and if I reinforce that behavior it will only make the next depressive episode that much worse.
The woman died because she stepped in front of a moving vehicle (jaywalking).
But Uber is going to have to answer some tough question under oath in the inevitable lawsuit.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-selfdriving-sensors-insight/ubers-use-of-fewer-safety-sensors-prompts-questions-after-arizona-crash-idUSKBN1H337Q
When Uber decided in 2016 to retire its fleet of self-driving Ford Fusion cars in favor of Volvo sport utility vehicles, it also chose to scale back on one notable piece of technology: the safety sensors used to detect objects in the road.
…
That decision resulted in a self-driving vehicle with more blind spots than its own earlier generation of autonomous cars, as well as those of its rivals, according to interviews with five former employees and four industry experts who spoke for the first time about Uber’s technology switch.
…
In scaling back to a single lidar on the Volvo, Uber introduced a blind zone around the perimeter of the SUV that cannot fully detect pedestrians, . . .
I suspect John may hate autonomous vehicles more than gay weddings.
There’s a certain breed of car enthusiasts that freak out over the idea that some people would prefer an autonomous vehicle. Because they think the government will force everybody to have them. Which may very well happen but that isn’t the fault of the technology, it’s the fault of the government.
THIS.
Personally, I’m more worried that you won’t be able to buy a manual transmission in 10 years, and that has nothing to do with the government.
It won’t take that long.
I got mine and I’m keeping it.
I’m the same way about manual locks and windows.
Today at lunch my 2 year old was pushing the buttons on the garage door opener. As we were across town from home, it didnt do anything.
Then I realized the problem with those whole house units controlled by phone.
Is he arguing for the precautionary principle?
It’s John. He’ll argue for the precautionary principle and he’ll argue against it. The main thing is John has the same childish mental deficiency as a progressive – they will never admit they might be wrong.
How do you politely tell a coworker that they’re a god damn retard?
You don’t, at least in Corporate America.
Correct, you stab them in the back instead. It’s the Corporate Way.
Ask for a cost-benefit analysis?
Sign him up for the Columbia Record Club.
At least that’s how we did it in the 90’s.
We used to make a donation to the Terrence Higgins Trust. Once you were on their mailing list, you couldn’t get off, short of death.
Which, under the circumstances, was pretty ironic.
Very slowly. No words greater than 5 letters.
Blunt it with flattery: “For a person with an IQ at least two standard deviations below the mean you make a lot of important contributions around here.” If they really are retarded they might think that’s a compliment.
How well did you tip her?
Not well enough, I guess.
Sometimes a gentleman needs to offer to cook a young lady a meal.
Or get her agreeably drunk.
Quaaludes.
In a Jello shot
You say they will someday be safer but unless you have magic powers to see the future, there is no guarantee of that. Moreover, until you do a lot more testing than this, there is no way to say for certain they are safer now. So, what gives the tech companies the right to test them in public when the risk is unknown and the people who are being placed at risk haven’t consented to be so?”
Precautionary Principle, FTW!
If John were around 100 Years ago, he would Complain about Henry Ford
“Damn that Henry Ford and his synthetic charcoal, ruining bland BBQ everywhere!”
In scaling back to a single lidar on the Volvo, Uber introduced a blind zone around the perimeter of the SUV that cannot fully detect pedestrians, . . .
Is this because of a “shadow” (best term I can think of) thrown by the roof?
Line of sight sensors require line of sight. I suspect you are right.
I can’t see any way a single line of sight sensor is going to see 360 degrees around the vehicle and both up and down in close proximity to the vehicle.
This looks like a huge technical deficit to me.
It must be OK though because the government licensed it.
“Uber referred questions on the blind spot to Velodyne. Velodyne acknowledged that with the rooftop lidar there is a roughly three meter blind spot around a vehicle, saying that more sensors are necessary.”
Good try at passing the buck, Uber.
Found this in the Missoula paper. The guy is a big-time supporter of the 2A. HIis point here is jury nullification is a way around “well, you signed the Social Contract’”.
The arguments are familiar to anyone here, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such first principles expressed in a normie forum.
http://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/consent-of-the-governed-and-informed-juries/article_2da01150-86c3-5a63-90b2-fa0300fd78ce.html
YES. I can’t believe they published this.
I only signed the social contract because the government was pointing a gun at me.
Oh, that reminds me. In the long list of civil rights related to criminal prosecution and trials that the British have eliminated, jury nullification is IIRC one of them.
It is hard to eliminate them if the jurors still know about it.
Full privatization. Let the market sort it out.