Rich Men North of Richmond

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 03:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Fun Fact: Cigarettes kill more people than guns each year. So why not a major push to ban cigarettes? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The same claim could be made with alcohol.  But cigarettes and alcohol keep people pacified.  Guns allow them to not be pacified.  There's a reason that an armed populace has been illegal throughout history in almost every nation on Earth, because it's far easier to control an unarmed people.  It's honestly the most radical and forward thinking amendment, after the first, in the whole Constitution.

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 03:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The same claim could be made with alcohol.  But cigarettes and alcohol keep people pacified.  Guns allow them to not be pacified.  There's a reason that an armed populace has been illegal throughout history in almost every nation on Earth, because it's far easier to control an unarmed people.  It's honestly the most radical and forward thinking amendment, after the first, in the whole Constitution.

Guns do keep people pacified in a way, at least the concept of owning guns.  I may have a biased view living in rural PA, but a lot of people in these parts are broken down factory workers who were tossed aside by society and watched their kids grow up and move away to get jobs, but they're satisfied because they have guns and they can vote for politicians who will protect their rights to own guns above all else.

This misguided concept that someday we are going to be able to use our god given right to own guns to prevent (insert thing here) keeps people pacified just fine.  We'll know totalitarianism when we see it, and we'll shoot it because we have guns.  And if people come to take our guns, we'll shoot them with our guns.  Why worry?  We have this figured out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 04:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Guns do keep people pacified in a way, at least the concept of owning guns.  I may have a biased view living in rural PA, but a lot of people in these parts are broken down factory workers who were tossed aside by society and watched their kids grow up and move away to get jobs, but they're satisfied because they have guns and they can vote for politicians who will protect their rights to own guns above all else.

This misguided concept that someday we are going to be able to use our god given right to own guns to prevent (insert thing here) keeps people pacified just fine.  We'll know totalitarianism when we see it, and we'll shoot it because we have guns.  And if people come to take our guns, we'll shoot them with our guns.  Why worry?  We have this figured out.

That's an interesting position.  Giving it some thought there are certainly people who are comforted by owning a firearm.  But I don't think that's any different from the self confidence a man feels who knows he can defend himself if necessary.  I've seen thousands of loud, in your face types and deep down they're loud and in your face because ultimately they are scared and lack confidence.  A man, or woman, knows they are physically capable of defending themselves they are generally the exact opposite of this.  There are certainly exceptions, those who got into shape to be able to bully others, but this is generally true.

If you've seen both Alien and Aliens, and shame on you if you haven't, then you know the difference.  In Alien they had zero chance against a creature that outclassed them physically in every way possible.  In Aliens they same being, while still scary, is less so as the means to defeat them is on hand.  Their numbers and the way things play out, e.g. bad leadership, drop ship being destroyed, creates a situation in which having guns is less reassuring, but it's still a far better scenario than that faced by the crew of Nostromo in Alien.  So, I don't know if I agree with your entire premise.  

TL;DR it's better to have a gun and maybe be outclassed than to not have one and definitely be outclassed i.e. defenseless.

[CJD]

(08-29-2023, 03:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I 100% agree.  The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the legacy media is scrambling to stay afloat with the proliferation of news sites available to the public.  Sensationalism is a survival strategy for them at this point. 

And this is a common problem in modern journalism.  They muddy the waters in their own stories.  The difference between me and you is I think this is done deliberately.

The difference between us is you seem to think it is done deliberately for ideological purposes and I believe it is done deliberately for monetary purposes. Sensationalism exists because our news system is built on attention, as attention leads to more money. The politics behind it are just based on who the attention is sought from. Fox News has proven that if you concentrate all your attention on conservatives, you can make just as much money as if you focus on Liberals. A spin is required to get the required attention to stay employed, so you just pick a direction. It may have something to do with your own personal politics, but I also think many "journalists" say things they don't believe because they know it will generate more attention, which leads to more money.

Quote:Racism, at a personal level, is IMO at an all time low.  Or rather, it was until very recently.  What I think is happening is a combination of factors.  Some people fear the country no longer resembling what they grew up with.  This is coupled with this belief, which is rather consistently advanced, that the US is irredeemably racist and anyone supporting it is guilty of the same.  Another issue is that many view it as a uniquely white issue, which it most certainly isn't and was vividly demonstrated during the "stop Asian hate" news cycle.  The problem isn't discussed honestly by pretty much anyone and the few people who do try and have this conversation are immediately attacked and labeled.

Outward racism (calling a black person on the street the n word with disgust in your voice) is absolutely at an all time low. But with that, came a much more insidious version of racism; the kind that you have to prove even exists.

Trevor Noah had an interesting "between the scenes" where he just takes questions from the audience while the next skit or section of the show is being set up. A person asked him "what's the difference between racism in South Africa when you were growing up (during the Apartheid), and racism in America."

I'm paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines of, "In hindsight, it was almost refreshing how forward South Africa was about their racism. They'd say "you can't do this, because you're black." And that was that. In America, the racism is much more under cover. "You can't get a loan for a home in this area. Nooo, it has nothing to do with your race, that's crazy." It's much easier fighting a racism that's in your face and obvious than it is to fight a racism that you consistently need to prove even exists."
Here's the video if you're interested.

Plausible deniability is the greatest defender of racism in today's America. Even the country "not resembling what it was when I was growing up" could EASILY be taken to be due to racism, especially if the America that they grew up in was in the 50s and 60s. This is what is so contemptuous about the phrase "Make America Great Again." ...When? What year? No one seems to have the same answer, if they're even willing to give an answer at all.

You can't read people's minds, so all you can do is interpret people's actions and the results of those actions. And that's what it's like trying to fight racism in America today. You must be a "detective of your own racism," as Trevor put it.

I don't know how people who are discussing racism honestly today are being attacked and labeled. Maybe they don't realize they are saying things that have long been used as racist dog whistles? Perhaps it's ignorance? Or maybe they aren't being as honest as you think they are?

Or maybe they're right and racism is much less common than people on the left would like to admit.

It's hard to say, because it's veiled in so many layers of deniability.

Quote:The reason I label it an agenda is because there's a clear pattern at work.  That, and the topic is never discussed in an open and fair manner.  Biden will ramble on endlessly about "white supremacy" (despite making an extremely racist statement himself on the floor of Congress) but ignoring the vast majority of shootings that he can't turn into political capital.

I'm not sure what extremely racist statement he said on the floor of Congress, but I think the whole talk about white supremacy is just a simplified concept that people latch onto (or repel, depending on what side of the aisle they sit on) without really understanding what they're actually talking about.

The fact is, this country was founded by white men, the laws were written by white men, the only people who could vote were white men (and land owners), and for a significant portion of our relatively brief history, there has been active and institutionally supported racism done to minorities of all kinds.

Most (if not all) of those laws have been scrubbed from the written laws over the last 50 to 60 years, but the people enforcing and believing in those laws are still alive and/or had children and taught them the same concepts that they learned (as all parents do). 

The best analogy I've heard about it is, imagine there's a game of Monopoly that is being played by a group of people, each of whom represent their own race/identity. At the beginning of the game, Only the white, male player is allowed to purchase the property that they land on, build on the land they purchase and collect 200 dollars when they pass go. This goes on for 200 turns. The white player has purchased almost all of the property and then, on turn 201, the rules change. Now the black player (and any other minority players) are allowed to purchase land (if they can afford it) and can collect money when they pass go.

On turn 201, is the game between all the players now perfectly fair?

What about on turn 250?

Turn 300?

On what turn will it actually be fair again?

Some would argue, it's impossible for the game to ever be fair without starting the game over or redistributing the property/money in some equitable way.

Quote:Actually, the second link I posted addresses exactly that, and it's not what you think.  I discovered that guy on Twitter a long time ago.  He's a great source for scientific evidence and actual statistics.  He consistently tweets in response to Everytown, Gifford and Shannon Watts and they never, ever respond.  He's not rude or abrasive either, he just counters their false claims with actual facts.

I checked each of the myths, I didn't notice one regarding why this is more common in America than other countries. Maybe I just read over it or it's worded in a way that didn't catch my eye. Regardless, it's more of a passing fancy of mine than an ideological viewpoint. I honestly think the damage has already been done. Gun control likely won't solve very much, if anything, at this point. But, again, not based on anything other than my own uninformed opinion, so I don't care to debate it much.

Quote:I actually had zero issue with them being expelled based on their flagrant violation of the rules.  The argument that other people hadn't been expelled doesn't really impress me.  "But he did it to" stopped being a reasonable excuse for behavior in grade school.

Politics and the "rules" for politicians are mostly an illusion. Politicians violate rules and ordinances all the time. It's all about doing what is correct vs what is politically advantageous. Did they violate some rules? Maybe, I can't say because I don't have the Tennessee constitution memorized. In the articles I've read about it, I've struggled to find direct excerpts of exactly what they did wrong, but that doesn't mean they didn't break some rule somewhere. Regardless, expelling people who are protesting the murder of innocent people, including children, is a bad look, even if it was technically a procedural violation. The Republicans were stupid to not realize that.

Quote:Which I understand.  When I take issue with it is when it is in promotion of a lie, especially a lie being told to try and curtail the rights of others.

I'm not sure what lie you are speaking about, specifically, but statements in politics are almost never black and white. Any given statement can be considered a "lie" or a "fact" based on what your presupposed biases are. There are facts and lies, of course. We don't live in a post-truth world. It's just much harder to discern now than it may have been in the past. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: TL;DR it's better to have a gun and maybe be outclassed than to not have one and definitely be outclassed i.e. defenseless.

I'm basically saying people around here have gladly given up their jobs, their health, their families, and other things due in no small part to (maybe I'm just being a bit too biased here) politicians who have comforted them by assuring they will protect their rights to own guns that they can use to defend themselves against those who would do them harm or take things from them.

Again, I'm just a bit pessimistic I guess but it seems like you can just take everything a man has as long as you can convince him you'll protect his right to shoot people who try to take everything he has.  Guns have made us defenseless in a sense that we will let the powers that be walk all over us as long as we have the perception that we can defend ourselves from people who will do us harm...well, that aren't them.

We need guns because everything goin' to hell in this country.  I feel like we spend too much time thinking that defending ourselves from those who would do us harm involves the simplistic notion of seeing an obvious BAD GUY and opening fire.

[HarleyDog]

(08-29-2023, 03:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The same claim could be made with alcohol.  But cigarettes and alcohol keep people pacified.  Guns allow them to not be pacified.  There's a reason that an armed populace has been illegal throughout history in almost every nation on Earth, because it's far easier to control an unarmed people.  It's honestly the most radical and forward thinking amendment, after the first, in the whole Constitution.

Agree, and I will always believe that American citizen's right to bear arms will always deter enemies from thinking about a land attack, before or after an air or nuclear attack. I think many people would like to think the possibility of an invasion of US soil isn't possible, but it is and always will be. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 05:17 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Agree, and I will always believe that American citizen's right to bear arms will always deter enemies from thinking about a land attack, before or after an air or nuclear attack. I think many people would like to think the possibility of an invasion of US soil isn't possible, but it is and always will be. 

It's certainly a deterrent, even if the Yamamoto quote about "rifle behind every blade of grass" is apocryphal.  Even if we're not talking about a large scale invasion, uprising, etc. the idea that the government should have a monopoly on the means of self defense is anathema to me.  A law abiding citizen presents n threat to anyone, and everyone deserves to be considered a law abiding citizen until they prove otherwise.  The "pre-crime" ideas of some on the left really bother me.  Everyone is not a potential criminal despite the oft repeated mantra of , "they were a law abiding citizen until they weren't."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 04:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm basically saying people around here have gladly given up their jobs, their health, their families, and other things due in no small part to (maybe I'm just being a bit too biased here) politicians who have comforted them by assuring they will protect their rights to own guns that they can use to defend themselves against those who would do them harm or take things from them.

Did they give them up?  You state this like the Democrats haven't had a fair hand in shipping jobs overseas and encouraging cheaper, migrant workers.

Quote:Again, I'm just a bit pessimistic I guess but it seems like you can just take everything a man has as long as you can convince him you'll protect his right to shoot people who try to take everything he has.  Guns have made us defenseless in a sense that we will let the powers that be walk all over us as long as we have the perception that we can defend ourselves from people who will do us harm...well, that aren't them.

I think many people will give you more credence if you assure them of their right to defend themselves.  There's an oft repeated saying on the right regarding gun ownership, "if someone is trying to take away your gun it's because they plan to do something you'd shoot them for."  While I cringe a bit at the sentiment expressed, it's not inherently wrong.  Any person who is willing to allow you a weapon of deadly force isn't planning on curtailing your liberty in a substantial fashion.  Of course, the inverse can be equally true.

Quote:We need guns because everything goin' to hell in this country.  I feel like we spend too much time thinking that defending ourselves from those who would do us harm involves the simplistic notion of seeing an obvious BAD GUY and opening fire.

Or maybe is just gives a person piece of mind to know they have the means to defend themselves?  I don't have homeowners insurance because I hope my house burns down, but I do feel more comfortable knowing I have it in case it does.

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did they give them up?  You state this like the Democrats haven't had a fair hand in shipping jobs overseas and encouraging cheaper, migrant workers.



I think many people will give you more credence if you assure them of their right to defend themselves.  There's an oft repeated saying on the right regarding gun ownership, "if someone is trying to take away your gun it's because they plan to do something you'd shoot them for."  While I cringe a bit at the sentiment expressed, it's not inherently wrong.  Any person who is willing to allow you a weapon of deadly force isn't planning on curtailing your liberty in a substantial fashion.  Of course, the inverse can be equally true.


Or maybe is just gives a person piece of mind to know they have the means to defend themselves?  I don't have homeowners insurance because I hope my house burns down, but I do feel more comfortable knowing I have it in case it does.

All I'm saying is that where I come from a lot of people aren't doing very well because of systematic changes that have taken place over the past few decades, meanwhile they are comforted that they have guns to protecting them from people taking stuff from them.  It just seems like a bit of a hollow peace to have, really.  If someone tries to take my $250 television I can shoot him dead.  Completely gut the power and viability of the working man?  Ehh fine, as long as I can shoot someone who would take my TV.

Like you said, it's peace of mind.  And being a broken down laid off or disabled relic of the industrial age gives you plenty of time to be on the lookout for some thug who might steal your last tenner, eh?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 05:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: All I'm saying is that where I come from a lot of people aren't doing very well because of systematic changes that have taken place over the past few decades, meanwhile they are comforted that they have guns to protecting them from people taking stuff from them.  It just seems like a bit of a hollow peace to have, really.  If someone tries to take my $250 television I can shoot him dead.  Completely gut the power and viability of the working man?  Ehh fine, as long as I can shoot someone who would take my TV.

Like you said, it's peace of mind.  And being a broken down laid off or disabled relic of the industrial age gives you plenty of time to be on the lookout for some thug who might steal your last tenner, eh?

Eh, I'm a cynical man and you're testing my limits in that regard. 

I certainly wouldn't speak for every single person in the situation you've described.  But you're describing this as a binary choice, wanna keep your gun, we gotta destroy your livelihood.  It's also certainly not limited to property crime.  What's an old man going t do to defend himself against a twenty year old who breaks into his home?  Much less an old woman, or even a younger woman for that matter.  I know for some who don't view this right as all that important this can sound extreme, but having the absolute right to possess a means of defending yourself is important.  Otherwise you are consigning a certain group of people to the status f perpetual victim, and with the current state of law and order in much of the country that is an unconscionable action. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 08:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, I'm a cynical man and you're testing my limits in that regard. 

I certainly wouldn't speak for every single person in the situation you've described.  But you're describing this as a binary choice, wanna keep your gun, we gotta destroy your livelihood.

I'm not expressing myself correctly, I guess.  It's not so much a binary choice, as it is our conditioning to think we know what a theft or a threat looks like.  As someone who has voted libertarian many a time with far less regret than I maybe should have, I won't say voting for a politician who supports the 2A is going to lead to ruin...I'm saying it's easy for people to buy into the notion that a gun will protect them from theft or harm while their paychecks and purchasing power are diminished and their safety and health are compromised.

When people tell me they've seen a ghost I know they've seen something transparent with human-like features.

When people tell me they've seen an angel I know they've seen a Michaelangelo style humanoid with a halo and wings.

When people tell me they've seen an alien I know they've seen a thin humanoid with big eyes.


We are always on the look out for what we are told to perceive as things that aren't so easily defined, but we like them nicely defined for us.  Patriotism has been boiled down to saluting a flag, this way you can poison the air and water and screw over veterans.  No one says "Pick up that cigarette butt, I fought for this country."  Well, maybe someone does.  My ol' man was a veteran who pointed that out.  The idea that he's supposed to care about the flag but stand by while people exploit or destroy everything else. 

So really what I'm saying is that talking about guns and protecting stuff really puts it in perspective when you look around the rust belt and see broken down, cancer-addled "used and discarded laborers" who have spent the past 40 years gladly busting their own unions (and yea, fudge Clinton and NAAFTA on that too) and helping the upper crust pick their pockets while they are too busy looking for "someone who is going to get them."

I've seen a lot of people who have been rather diplomatically drubbed, but they've got guns and guns can protect you from people who will exploit you without god and the law on their side, I suppose.  Voting to keep guns won't destroy your livelihood per ser, but a lot of politicians who are going to take from you are going to make sure you have a gun BUT they'll be damn sure to make you think you need to thank them for letting you shoot anyone who isn't them.

Guns pacify people, is my point.  And the notion that you can spend your last breath defending the final pile of crap you own that hasn't been taken from you in a non-thuggish way keeps a lot of folks going.  Good on them.

[Eraserhead]

(08-29-2023, 09:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Guns pacify people, is my point.  And the notion that you can spend your last breath defending the final pile of crap you own that hasn't been taken from you in a non-thuggish way keeps a lot of folks going.  Good on them.

I know a guy that takes selfies with his guns,, makes TikTaks with them,, talks about them all the time. His guns are literally his identity. He's always preparing for all the people coming to get his guns. It's a creepy, strange thing to watch,, but it's becoming a real thing where guns aren't just things you own,, they're symbols of who you are and what you believe,, and a status level of you're patriotism. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 09:27 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: I know a guy that takes selfies with his guns,, makes TikTaks with them,, talks about them all the time. His guns are literally his identity. He's always preparing for all the people coming to get his guns. It's a creepy, strange thing to watch,, but it's becoming a real thing where guns aren't just things you own,, they're symbols of who you are and what you believe,, and a status level of you're patriotism. 

I wish we as a people weren't so susceptible to that cheap form of "LOOK AT GUN" or "MORE GUN IS MORE PATRIOT" crap.  I'm thinking of Lauren Bobert doing videos with a stupid amount of guns just piled on her shelf like a normal conservative granny would have Elvis commemorative plates or Beanie Babies or something.  It's almost to the point of parody.  I feel like running for office where my campaign video is just me opening my front door and a literally wave of unguarded and unsecured guns come pouring out onto the porch. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 09:27 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: I know a guy that takes selfies with his guns,, makes TikTaks with them,, talks about them all the time. His guns are literally his identity. He's always preparing for all the people coming to get his guns. It's a creepy, strange thing to watch,, but it's becoming a real thing where guns aren't just things you own,, they're symbols of who you are and what you believe,, and a status level of you're patriotism. 

[Eraserhead]

(08-29-2023, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Not very familiar with social media lingo are ya,, or maybe you actually rock with the Tok? 

[*pally*]

The writings of the Nashville shooter have not been made public because ownership of the papers was transferred to the families of The Covenent School back in June. They are seeking to keep them private. News organizations have appealed that ruling which is still in progress. I suspect the appeal will result in victory for the news folks.

[*pally*]

(08-29-2023, 05:17 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Agree, and I will always believe that American citizen's right to bear arms will always deter enemies from thinking about a land attack, before or after an air or nuclear attack. I think many people would like to think the possibility of an invasion of US soil isn't possible, but it is and always will be. 

Right, because the only 2 counties that would even consider a land attack on the US are terrified of people with guns. First of all it is not 1941 anymore. No one, with todays technology, can get close to the US with a large attack force without us knowing about it well in advance. And if by chance they could, they would be far more concerned with a large sitting military with the most sophisticated weapons in the world than some dude with a gun.

We cannot ignore a very well financed well orchestrated long term campaign by the gun manufacturers, gun lobbyists, NRA, and right wing politicians to use fear of one’s neighbors to push gun ownership in this country. The first 200 years of this country the phrase “well regulated militia” was the operative thought in the 2nd amendment. The last 45 years it’s been “shall not be infringed”. That’s not by accident.

[HarleyDog]

(08-30-2023, 06:33 AM)pally Wrote: Right, because the only 2 counties that would even consider a land attack on the US are terrified of people with guns.  

Not terrified, but definitely a deterrent. I will never think we are untouchable. Personally, I don't own a firearm. However, of the 20 houses on my block, I would wager 15 have guns under their roof. Also, as has been mentioned, it's a great deterrent against our own government. People have the right not to own a firearm and put their faith and trust in a government that only says they care about them, which some people do. Yet I will not take my freedom for granted by giving up my rights, or anyone else's right to own one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-30-2023, 06:17 AM)pally Wrote: The writings of the Nashville shooter have not been made public because ownership of the papers was transferred to the families of The Covenent School back in June.  They are seeking to keep them private.  News organizations have appealed that ruling which is still in progress.  I suspect the appeal will result in victory for the news folks.

How convenient.  Who knew that public record could be privatized?  

(08-30-2023, 06:33 AM)pally Wrote: Right, because the only 2 counties that would even consider a land attack on the US are terrified of people with guns.  First of all it is not 1941 anymore.  No one, with todays technology, can get close to the US with a large attack force without us knowing about it well in advance.  And if by chance they could, they would be far more concerned with a large sitting military with the most sophisticated weapons in the world than some dude with a gun.

We cannot ignore a very well financed well orchestrated long term campaign by the gun manufacturers, gun lobbyists, NRA, and right wing politicians to use fear of one’s neighbors to push gun ownership in this country. The first 200 years of this country the phrase “well regulated militia” was the operative thought in the 2nd amendment.  The last 45 years it’s been “shall not be infringed”. That’s not by accident.

Perhaps you'd like to provide us with some evidence of said "very well financed well orchestrated long term campaign by the gun manufacturers, gun lobbyists, NRA, and right wing politicians to use fear of one’s neighbors to push gun ownership in this country", because I've never seen it.  Maybe as a gun owner since an early age they skipped targeting me with this campaign.

(08-30-2023, 09:09 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not terrified, but definitely a deterrent. I will never think we are untouchable. Personally, I don't own a firearm. However, of the 20 houses on my block, I would wager 15 have guns under their roof. Also, as has been mentioned, it's a great deterrent against our own government. People have the right not to own a firearm and put their faith and trust in a government that only says they care about them, which some people do. Yet I will not take my freedom for granted by giving up my rights, or anyone else's right to own one.

Anyone who thinks an armed populace has zero chance against a modern military need only look at Afghanistan for an example in the last few years.  Gun control folks are big on talking points and rhetoric and very low on actual knowledge and facts.  It's why they repeat obvious and blatant lies like "guns are the #1 killer of children" when it's not even close to true.  If you have to lie, repeatedly, to try and make your argument then you're not making a very good one and your motives must certainly be called into question.

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

I first glanced at this and assumed you were accusing him of making a ticky tacky argument.  Then I realized he said TikTak as in "Oh you damn kids and yer tiktak and yer vidja games!"