By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Republican House Whip Steve Scalise, shot in Virginia mass shooting

sc94597 on 15 June 2017
SuaveSocialist said:
sc94597 said:

The common man deserves access to the means of defense, but please defend how one can be a True Scotsman but think an entire class of people should be deprived of their rights.

Do indicate which Article in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an equivalent to the Second Amendment and then I will openly acknowledge that the Second Amendment is, in fact, a human right.  I'm not seeing one anywhere.  It's like the world has achieved a consensus on the matter and yet still has found ways for the common man to be able to lawfully defend himself.  I guess the Second Amendment isn't a human right, after all.  It's more of a...hmmm...a worthy hypothesis, albeit one disproven by reality.

Why, there are even dozens of countries without such an equivalent in their founding principles and somehow they are doing just fine.  Such as West Korea's Canadian neighbors; they don't even need a giant moat to pull it off like England, Japan and Australia.  The largest undefended border in the world and still managed to grant The People their human rights while avoiding a murder hose infestation.

As you can see, Scotsmen such as I--True or No--are not defending or advocating the deprivation of rights at all.  We are, however, calling out a refuted hypothesis for the debunked hyperbole that it is.  Oh, and criticizing it accordingly.

I never said the second amendment is a human right. All persons have a right to defend themselves, the second amendment is just a charter which protects that right explicitly, and no class has a right to a monopoly on violence. If we are all truly equal, that means we must be treated equally. Gun control is based on the premise that some people (the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, bureaucrats, white people, etc) are more worthy to own weapons than others. That is not egalitarian, and is therefore not socialist. 

By the way, it is ridiculous to take the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as an exhaustive list of what rights people have. Especially considering that the UN is an organization composed of quite brutal nation-states and forgives them for any abridgements of this supposed "consensus". 

There is no such thing as a "world consensus", otherwise you'd  concede that capitalism and class inequality are world consensus also, since most successful countries have both. Should socialists no longer target this "consensus" too? What a conservative argument, "Look at the consensus!!" 



Around the Network
NewGuy on 15 June 2017

I'm sick and tired of the fascism of the tolerant left.



The_Yoda on 15 June 2017
SuaveSocialist said:
DarthVolod said:

More like a violent oppressive worldview aka socialism strikes again. 

Sorry, but the NRA isn't a socialist institution, and they are proponents of the Second Amendment being a citizen's Constitutional right (nay, patriotic duty) to overthrow a corrupt government.  

What you have here is a man who recognized a corrupt government and shot an accomplice to that corruption.  He did exactly as Republicans proudly say they'd do.


There's no other way to say it: the Second Amendment strikes again.  Perhaps if West Koreahad sane firearms regulations, there wouldn't be a mass shooting almost every day.  Perhaps mentally disturbed persons such as this man would have been denied possession of his murder hose.  But hey, you can blame it on Socialism if you want.

Bravo I didn't think i would see comments more disgusting than those by Jesse Benn but thanks for shattering that illusion.



monocle_layton on 15 June 2017

Annnd we're now gonna see a circle jerk of comments against the left, people saying the left is ignoring it

Even Trump is saying we should unite and condemn this. Can we stop with the left vs right bullshit?



Teeqoz on 15 June 2017
NightDragon83 said:
Teeqoz said:

Advocating better and stricter gun regulation doesn't mean you deny gun ownership to an entire class of people...

Please do explain how "better and stricter gun regulation" (whatever that means) would have prevented today's shooting WITHOUT stripping or curtailing others of their rights to own guns in any capacity?

This guy was already legally licensed to own firearms in the state of Illinois despite his checkered history, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  What additional law or laws would have prevented him from obtaining a gun?

I was just arguing why being a socialist (which I for the record am not)  and for stricter gun control aren't necesarily mutually exclusive standpoints...

And of course any gun control regulation would (by definition almost) deny some people access to guns in some capacity. When did I say that it shouldn't? I think owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. I think of the same way about having the right to drive a car. It's a privilege that has to be earned. You wouldn't let a person drive a car without multiple test of both their knowledge about traffic rules, as well as their actual driving skill. 

But literally all I said about gun control was this: "Advocating better and stricter gun regulation doesn't mean you deny gun ownership to an entire class of people..."

I didn't even say that this specific instance could've been avoided with stricter gun control. You are just making assumptions.



Around the Network
Teeqoz on 15 June 2017
sc94597 said:
Teeqoz said:

I didn't know gun-regulations had to be based on income instead of, say, mental health and such...

Gun regulations are already based on mental health in the United States. If you were involuntary institutionalized then you no longer are able to legally own a gun, unless you get a judge to sign off on it. The laws proposed in the United States are intended to limit their distribution amongst people who are deemed undesirable. The long history of gun control in the United States has its roots in racism ("black people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against the KKK, lets enact gun control"), and classism ("that poor redneck *isn't intelligent to own a gun, I don't trust him. ") 

*Note redneck originated as a class label of farmers, and then spread to the American proleteriat after the industrial revolution. It is very much a class-oriented term. 

I am sure you could do better psych-evaluations (clearly the current screening methods doesn't catch all the nut-jobs), but regardless, that doesn't mean the only other option is denying gun ownership to an economic class...



sc94597 on 15 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
sc94597 said:

Gun regulations are already based on mental health in the United States. If you were involuntary institutionalized then you no longer are able to legally own a gun, unless you get a judge to sign off on it. The laws proposed in the United States are intended to limit their distribution amongst people who are deemed undesirable. The long history of gun control in the United States has its roots in racism ("black people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against the KKK, lets enact gun control"), and classism ("that poor redneck *isn't intelligent to own a gun, I don't trust him. ") 

*Note redneck originated as a class label of farmers, and then spread to the American proleteriat after the industrial revolution. It is very much a class-oriented term. 

I am sure you could do better psych-evaluations (clearly the current screening methods doesn't catch all the nut-jobs), but regardless, that doesn't mean the only other option is denying gun ownership to an economic class...

No screening method will catch all nut jobs in a country with a population of over 300 million, without abridging the right to privacy and confidentiality alone. 

Actually existing proposals for gun laws by American legislators disproportanately affect ownership amongst the lower classes, and that is their intention. The problem in the United States is not gun ownership. It is a variety of other things. It is drug criminalization and its effects on racial minorities and low income persons which pushes them into the drug trade and therefore gangs. It is the lack of mental health resources for the people who need them. It is the marginalization of certain groups in society to where they feel like they have nothing to lose. All of these are conductive to the majority of gun deaths which are 1. suicides, then 2. gang warfare, and then 3. accidents. Mass shootings rate at 2% of all gun homicides, which are themselves a small percentage of all deaths in general. 

Solving suicide, solving gang warfare, solving accidents, solving mental health access are priorities but proposing silly laws that just make gun ownership impractical/uneconomical for poor people, and merely inconvenient for the upper classes is not a solution. It is just policy based on classism. 




Aeolus451 on 15 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
Aeolus451 said:

Nope. Which side keeps trying to dehumanize people they disagree by calling them nazis, racists, etc so it's easier to justify violence towards them? Seriously... which side think it's a joke to hold up the severed fake head of a president? Which side keeps trying to censor the other side or shut down their events? What do you think of ANTIFA trying to bash in skulls at trump rallies? Which side is trying to push the false narrative that the president isn't a legiment president because the russians interferred with the election?

What to see some reactions from the left on this particular event?

 

A writer from huffington post.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I never claimed that there weren't factions within left wing (primarily US) politics that uses divisive and even hateful rethoric. There certainly is. I'm just saying you too are using divisive rethoric, and that it's hypocritical of you to call it out while doing the very same thing yourself. Even your reply here is filled with divisive rethoric. I mean, you are literally talking about "which sides" are doing what. But go on blaming "the other side" for any and all problems, while at the same time engaging in that problematic behaviour you are complaining about. Just don't be surprised when people call out your hypocrisy.

The only label I use for the left is "the regressive left." Mainly because it fits. Admittedly, it is divisive of me. I believe in treating eachother as equals and that we all should have the same rights. Calling me a white male is sexist and racist in the context that the left tends to use. Using that as a justification to discriminate against me or mistreat me is extremely hypocritical of the people who are supposedly for equality. The left framing every political issue around race, sex/gender, nationality, religion, etc is what is causing the division in america. 

Gee.....I wonder why I talk of sides. I was put on a side whether I like it or not.



Aeolus451 on 15 June 2017
coolbeans said:
Aeolus451 said:

This is much more than that. There was 20 something republican congressmen at that baseball practice. I'm sure that guy intended to off as many as possible but luckily, Scalise had some foresight with having armed security and cops there. 

Not really Scalise's foresight to be exact.  Armed security for House Majority Whip comes standard.

If you carry around a gun on you for years but one day someon tries to mug, you point it at him and luckily he runs away. Did you have foresight? Yes.



-CraZed- on 15 June 2017
SuaveSocialist said:

The Second Amendment strikes again.

Is that what struck Paris? Or any other country where gun violence is much higher than the US yet has no 2nd amendment rights? Its not a 2nd amendment problem nor is it a problem caused by the gun which is just a tool. A crazy sick human being has struck again.