Las Vegas Shootings

[Canarr]

So are you telling me, in every instance above, that ANTIFA was provoked into "action"?

Me? No, I'm not telling you that; that was jackfaire's claim. But I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence of Antifa only retaliating after being provoked, not attacking outright.

My problem with Antifa is that they are using precisely the methods that the fascists they claim to oppose have been using since the 1920s and 1930s: silencing, intimidation, menacing, violence. "No-platforming" is, essentially, a fascist tactic - you decide who is allowed to speak, and more importantly, who isn't. But hide it in the cloak of virtue - we are only stopping the BAD GUYS from speaking out! - and everything is okay?

No, it's not. Fascism is one of those things you can't fight with its own weapons.

[jackfaire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVOuY7hoqEs

[Greenday]

Me? No, I'm not telling you that; that was jackfaire's claim. But I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence of Antifa only retaliating after being provoked, not attacking outright.

My problem with Antifa is that they are using precisely the methods that the fascists they claim to oppose have been using since the 1920s and 1930s: silencing, intimidation, menacing, violence. "No-platforming" is, essentially, a fascist tactic - you decide who is allowed to speak, and more importantly, who isn't. But hide it in the cloak of virtue - we are only stopping the BAD GUYS from speaking out! - and everything is okay?

No, it's not. Fascism is one of those things you can't fight with its own weapons.

Usually we fight it with guns and bombs so...

[Canarr]

And when you say, „usually”, you mean, “70+ years ago”, right?

I’m curious: Is that actually your proposal for fighting people following fascist ideologies within your own population? Gun them down in the streets?

[Greenday]

And when you say, „usually”, you mean, “70+ years ago”, right?

I’m curious: Is that actually your proposal for fighting people following fascist ideologies within your own population? Gun them down in the streets?

Saddam? Taliban? Qaddafi?

[Gravekeeper]

How did you guys get from the Las Vegas shooting to Antifa? -.-

[mjr]

<snip>
The fascists don't give a crap about your protests or your Facebook posts. Words don't stop fascism.

I concur with your post here, Greenday. That doesn't give ANTIFA (or anyone, for that matter) the right to just punch someone in the face.

How did you guys get from the Las Vegas shooting to Antifa? -.-

Post #52. Last sentence.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

How did you guys get from the Las Vegas shooting to Antifa? -.-

Oh you know, the usual "What about xxx"

[Cia]

[QUOTE=s_stabeler;169352]That's why I suggested making the person who makes the straw purchase liable, since they definitely do know they are intended to go to someone not legally allowed to purchase a gun.


Sorry, I read it as the store owner not the straw purchaser. That might help on cutting back on straw purchasers until you get an actual innocent one who was stupid and purchased for their buddy who conned their friend into being a protective layer against prosecution. "I didn't buy it, he did."

[Cia]

Or just institute a 48-72 hour wait period before you can actually get the gun. Would reduce a lot of crimes of passion and suicides.

South Dakota repealed it's 48-hour waiting period in 2009. It used to be no waiting period for long guns, no waiting period for handguns when in possession of a valid CCW and a 48-hour wait for no CCW.

[Gravekeeper]

Post #52. Last sentence.

To be blunt that doesn't actually answer my question. You brought up Antifa in response to a point about the dangers of the frontier?

Dogs attack and kill more people in the US than Antifa ever has. Yet you wouldn't argue you need a shotgun to protect yourself from roving packs of hounds. So why in the world would you bring that up?

[mjr]

Dogs attack and kill more people in the US than Antifa ever has. Yet you wouldn't argue you need a shotgun to protect yourself from roving packs of hounds. So why in the world would you bring that up?

Because it's relevant.

[s_stabeler]

That's why I suggested making the person who makes the straw purchase liable, since they definitely do know they are intended to go to someone not legally allowed to purchase a gun.

Sorry, I read it as the store owner not the straw purchaser. That might help on cutting back on straw purchasers until you get an actual innocent one who was stupid and purchased for their buddy who conned their friend into being a protective layer against prosecution. "I didn't buy it, he did."

So make it accessory liability- the actual shooter still goes to jail, and accessory charges are more flexible in punishment, so you can account for someone merely being stupid.

[Gravekeeper]

Because it's relevant.

No, it isn't. It's ridiculous. You're comparing protests turning violent to having to fend off bears and natives in time before modern civilization. In a discussion about gun control.

[mjr]

No, it isn't. It's ridiculous. You're comparing protests turning violent to having to fend off bears and natives in time before modern civilization. In a discussion about gun control.

A protest that turns violent is no longer a protest. Correct?