There are a lot of taboos on commercial television, which for instance doesn’t like to show scenes of poverty (unless it’s being chased by police), rarely interviews non-voters, almost never does military contracting fraud stories, and seldom shows results on the ground of American military/drone strikes, even if they’ve already appeared on the airwaves of other countries.
Perhaps the most dependable taboo in American media, however, involves black Second Amendment advocates. As Ford [Fischer] and News2Share have documented over the years, there are many such groups, and they sometimes march in conjunction with groups like the Boogaloo Boys. In fact, the biggest taboo of all might be showing such groups demonstrating together:
Today armed Black Lives Matter and “boogaloo” protesters joined forces for an open carry rally against police violence and government overreach. I’ll have HD video up ASAP, but here are some photos I snapped today.
Betcha didn’t see this on cable news today. pic.twitter.com/mWXUKQkhA8
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) July 4, 2020
Whatever your feelings about guns — I personally am not a fan — the psychology of the contrasting coverage of pro-gun demonstrations is fascinating. News audiences are clearly meant to associate white pro-gun protesters with a dangerous and probably organized national race-hatred movement, while black pro-gun protesters either don’t exist or are a fringe movement not worth covering. Under no circumstance must such groups be shown together, even when they organize co-demonstrations.
— Matt Taibbi and Ford Fischer in Activism Uncensored: Are Black 2nd Amendment Advocates the Ultimate Taboo?
Matt Taibbi is an interesting animal. A liberal, he has written that the left has lost the gun control argument, and pushing gun control only hurts them.
One to read up on then. Not all liberals are batshit crazy/dim side of stupid and it pays to understand what they are working on. With my luck it will just be another WEF/CFR front man and not too interesting.
So…perhaps a true liberal, and not a Progressive/Marxist,?
This.
Dollars incomes sincere process to parent and earn on-line. start now developing each day over $500 simply performing from home. Last month my incomes from this are $16205 and i gave this process entirely hours from my entire day. only manner to earn (wsx26) extra economic advantage on-line and it doesn’t goals any pretty unique experience. circulate to this net web website online right now and
observe info to set off began out
proper now………>>>>>>>>>> http://workpay24.blogspot.com
For some reason it’s easier for me to accept a group that calls themselves “boogaloo”. But when the word “boys” is in their name, it’s difficult to take them seriously.
The Oak Ridge Boys were about entertainment so that made sense. When it’s about a group of people fighting for freedom with guns then it just seems ridiculous.
What about the Green Mountain Boys? They seemed pretty serious.
I have never heard of them until today. I had to look that up. My only response is to say that much has changed since then and my philosophy is that we should be getting better as time goes on. If the idea is not to advance, improve, and be better today than we were yesterday then the result is stagnation. It’s hard to think of a more poetic example of that than what has been happening nationally these last few years.
Outside the realm of technology, most everything wrong in 2022 resulted from attempts to “be better than we were yesterday”. The Bill of Rights as originally implemented is like a moral North Pole, from which a step in any direction is due south, and “stagnation” of those liberties (and the moral foundations on which they were based) as the Green Mountain Boys knew them would be a wonderful thing.
@Umm . . .
Everything that has been going wrong lately is a direct result of stepping AWAY from law. Law that IS the US Constitution. It’s one thing when we are talking about individuals within the general population. For them, lawlessness is “thug life” that is why this nation has LEO in the first place. It’s an entirely different animal when government loses it’s moral foundation to the point where the country goes nuts.
It isn’t a “step in any direction”. It’s the step into the Democrat left direction that breeds insanity, ignorance, and self-destruction.
I agree with everything in your first paragraph.
Regarding the second, that’s basically what I said. At the North Pole, there is no east or west; you either stay where you are, or head south regardless of what direction you think you’re going. Every step away from the Founders’ Bill of Rights (and its ethical and cultural foundations) is a step in the wrong direction. “Rights with sensible restrictions” are objectively inferior in every way to rights. “Justice tempered by mercy” is objectively inferior to justice. Etc.
Umm, I agree with you 100%. Brett and Eric Weinstein use the term “load bearing structures” as in many of our social conventions and natural/God given rights are holding important aspects of our civilization. Aspects of our civilization that we now see crumbling since those social conventions and/or rights were damaged or destroyed.
Thanks, Pirate, and thanks for the reference! The Weinsteins have some very thought-provoking perspectives.
The “journalistic” “standards” of the media are fully, and utterly, transactional. Been that way for, what, 50yrs?
The Dims, and dictators both require the establishment of a plantation, and iron-fisted control over the slaves. A critical element of plantations is keeping the slaves ignorant.
Traditional ‘news’ sources have always been corrupt. At best they work for the equally corrupt .gov in control at the time.
The internet has made a difference in that dynamic. Which is why the fascist left tries its best to censor that source as well.
There are a lot of taboos on… TTAG…
For instance, the news blackout on another Texas mass shooting with a 19-year-old using AR 15 that was averted by a woman ‘red flagging’ the shooter.
“A critical element of plantations is keeping the slaves ignorant“
“LOCAL NEWS
Police arrest San Antonio man who threatened to commit a mass shooting
Rodolfo Valdivia Aceves, 19, is charged with terroristic threat
Julie Moreno, Executive Producer/Digital Content
Dillon Collier, Investigative Reporter
Published: June 28, 2022, 7:46 AM
“A 19-year-old man has been arrested after he allegedly warned a woman of his plans to carry out a mass shooting at the Amazon facility employing them, according to San Antonio authorities. Rodolfo Aceves has been charged with making a terroristic threat after his co-worker tipped off the police to his alleged threat. He was taken into custody on Monday, according to Bexar County records. Aceves, according to his colleague, idolized the gunman who carried out last month’s school shooting in Uvalde, and had told her he was “tired of living.” The young man allegedly made the threatening remarks last Friday, after a fire alarm went off at his Amazon delivery depot. While filing out of the building, Aceves turned to his co-worker and mused that “it would be a good idea” to pull the fire alarm before committing a mass shooting, she told investigators. He then allegedly told her that he was intent on carrying out a shooting, KSAT-12 reported. Aceves’ father, when interviewed by detectives, said that the 19-year-old had purchased an AR-15-style rifle, and that his family was afraid of him.“
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/06/28/police-arrest-san-antonio-man-who-threatened-to-commit-a-mass-shooting/
So what? She did. He didn’t. It was a local story. Grow up.
minor49IQ…You do not need a Red Flag to report such circumstance. You report it to the police like that age old thing called “Crime Stoppers.” And of course filing a false police report should result in time in jail and a defamation civil suit…don’t you think?
Yet you seem to ignore the hundreds of violent criminals violent crimes daily that could have been stopped because their pre crime activity was reported by citizens yet the police failed to stop them despite knowing the crime was in progress at the time of the report.
You also ignore that around 80% of school/ mass shooters are known along with their intent to law enforcement before they carry out their heinous acts due to reporting.
So great, a person reported something before it happened and something was done… a rare chance that it was stopped in this case does not a tremendous difference make for the overall issue .
Thank you for the distractions. I can always rely on you for that. Since black people and white people who both believe in the Second Amendment have come together for a common cause. And of course the general news media doesn’t want to talk about it. Just as you don’t want to talk about it.
Saw this on Fox News.
So a person of color was plotting a mass shooting. I don’t think that is relevant to the topic. How does this reflect on Pro-2A organizations of different ethnicities collaborating?
@Miner49er
I’m surprised didn’t post about the deaths of 51 in Texas a few days back. You must have imposed a ‘news blackout’
And no one’s rights were violated by an unconstitutional law. Just a citizen reporting a potential murder(s) and the police actually doing their jobs in a timely manner.
MajorStupidity,
She REPORTED IT TO THE POLICE. I seem to have missed the part where the police sought and received a (wholly unconstitutional) “Red Flag” order. Where was that mentioned in the story?????
Like all lying Leftist/fascists, you use Humpty Dumpty’s philosophy of words – “A word means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
HE WAS ARRESTED FOR “MAKING TERRORISTIC THREATS” YOU LYING BUFFOON!
You remain too stupid to insult.
AFAIK Texas doesn’t have a red flag law, illustrating my often made point that such laws are not needed, and what they purport to do but never seem to could easily be accomplished under existing law in every state. Thank you for making my point Miner.
That’s not a red-flag call. That’s a credible directly stated threat with means, motive, and tangible action towards fulfilment. Hardly a comparison to “the quiet guy likes guns and isn’t social, take his rights without investigation.
“Just a citizen reporting a potential murder(s) and the police actually doing their jobs in a timely manner.“
Beautiful, I’m so glad you guys agree with the concept of red flag laws.
In this instance, a person who is in no way related or a domestic partner to a free adult, merely made a statement about reporting alleged comments made by this free adult and presto!
The big bad government stepped in and arrested him, as well as confiscating his firearms.
He committed no crimes and took no illegal actions, and yet he was arrested and had his second amendment rights taken by the government.
I am surprised that you folks would agree to such wide open parameters for red flagging an individual, taking their freedom and confiscating their firearms.
So you’re good with a ‘coworker’ relating hearsay as justification for incarcerating a citizen and taking their Second Amendment rights.
That’s progress!
“The internet has made a difference in that dynamic.”
Note that the Dims and Leftists only believe what government tells them. So it is that the internet does not actually present diversity in viewpoint, and Dims and Leftists do not read opposing thought. “You can lead a person to information, but you can’t make them think.”
A good example is BIL, who rejects information on the internet, from sources he trusts, that go counter to the Dim/Left narrative. He claims that such resources are not real, but fakes. Says that it is too hard to keep up via the internet, and depends on television to sort things out, and give an accurate summary of the news.
When one searches the net for something, they’re presented with opinions and news from “trusted” sources. I noticed it began changing pretty dramatically in 2017. You usually have to know where to look to find alternative views.
“Note that the Dims and Leftists only believe what government tells them.”
No… They only believe the government when it’s majority is on “their side”. For the most part, and being unable to think and/or reason for themselves, the progressives follow what their handlers instruct them to believe.
It still does NOT explain why anybody needs SEMI-AUTOMATIC Rifles. These weapons have only ONE realistic purpose and that is to kill people and do it BEFORE they kill you. That is their entire purpose and ONLY purpose. They can in no way be considered an instrument of SELF DEFENCE under ANY circumstances.
I simply cannot understand why any sane person would want one. Does it make them feel in some way more ‘manly or adequate? Are they just looking for an excuse to slot some poor bugger?
I do have some experience in these matter and SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL experience at that. I was an Sergeant Armourer and Smallarms Instructor in the UK Royal Air Force for a number of years and a member of the UK Army Infantry Reserves. In the manner of things Military that’s about as professional as most would get and I trained literally hundreds of Boys and Girls to shoot and do it properly and under strict discipline and control. I can assure you that the GUN-FREAKS did NOT last long!
herr dacian the liar. We don’t have to explain wanting a semi auto or full auto for that matter. Explaining basic needs is what subjects and slaves do.
The Wing Commander’s nob polisher has spoken again.
Obviously after a serious spanking session from Madam Lash.
Oh great, another lunatic. You’re either trolling or as crazy as a stepped on roach.
Spoken like a true subject. Now go beg your “betters” or clemency.
AllHail(alberthall) says – ” these weapons have only one realistic purpose, and that is to kill someone before they kill you.” In self defense, that is exactly the desired outcome. Dumbass.
Exactly spot on. If! Albert is a true person in the UK then he will never understand. Too much conditioning from birth, too much royal family drama, too much of everything that has been used to keep them in peasant status.
“It still does NOT explain why anybody needs SEMI-AUTOMATIC Rifles.”
It’s called an enumerated ‘Civil Right’.
In this case, number 2 on a ‘Top 10’ list of civil rights.
The neat thing about civil rights in America is, you don’t need anyone’s permission to exercise a civil right, and it’s illegal to try and stop someone from exercising their civil rights.
The US Supreme Court just ruled trying to ban semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines is illegal.
We win, you lose, you are welcome to go work on your (obviously lacking) coping skills, you insolent wanker.
It’s been fun sneering at you, old boy. Now sod off… 🙂
Why does someone need a semi auto rifle? Why does anyone need the protections laid out in the 4th or Fifth Amendment? If you haven’t done anything you’ve got nothing to worry about right? It’s best if you just trust government to know it’s best isn’t that right? And while we’re at it why do women need the right to vote?
Couple of points; how does your “serious professional” experience give you any knowledge of what civilian’s living in a free society need for self defense. Secondly, our second amendment was codified for the expressed ability to defy a tyrannical government. I know that being a subject of the British government might work for you beta boys, but we here in the US determined long ago to cast off the shackles of government subjugation. Lastly, why are you even on this website? Is it just to be an ignorant limey cocksucker, or do you have a genuine interest in firearms and self defense. I’m guessing it’s the former and maybe you should think about fucking off back across the pond.
Well, who are you to determine what I might or might not need?
sir albert of nuttingham…The only need that matters is your need to stfu. In America…you defend your life your way and others will defend their lives their way. That’s the program and if you do not like it you’ll find your bruised and bloody red coat behind in a paddle boat headed back to the England.
Albert, the fact the you say you have “professional experience” and you “taught” many how to shoot scares the crap out of me.
On one of your previous comments, you couldn’t tell the difference between 9mm, 9mm NATO, 9mm Luger and 9mm Para. Who the hell are you trying to teach of you don’t know those extremely basic things.
If I were you, I’d get my money back from who “taught” you, and if I was one of those people you “taught” I’d want my money back.
I appreciate you using your 1st Ammendment rights to criticize my 2nd Ammendment rights. I choose to use both of those rights……On second thought, you have neither of those rights cause your country is stupid.
Makes one yearn for the days before Al Gore invented the interwebs, ( //s ) doesn’t it ?…when idiots had to send a very expensive overseas cable to contribute gibberish such as this that we’ve come to expect from the likes of Fathead Albert. At least these inane comments have intrinsic entertainment value, if nothing else.
He might really have been an RAF vet. I used to know a Flight Leftenant who was an absolute goober and claimed he had a shotgun certificate, but never proved that he owned any guns. Air Forces rarely receive a lot of small arms training, and any airman who is not a “gun freak” is not likely to have valuable input on firearms based on their military service.
Furthermore, being a firearms instructor in the UK military is not something to brag about. I remember a /k/ story where a “gun freak” recruit tried to correct his instructor when she kept insisting the BHP uses .9mm ammunition, and he was the one who got punished for her being an idiot.
Finally, I seriously doubt AH’s claims of being an 80yo on the internet, and he types too stereotypically. “Slot a bugger” is some crap he heard from Price on cowadooty. He’s probably some teenager or 20-something with no life. Heck, he might not even be a bong. He might be a continental Europoor because of the way he smashes words together like a German sometimes.
It also does not explain why you need a way to post on the internet… but we get over your nonsense missives and move on.
why do people need cars with automatic transmissions?
Why do people need automatic deposits of their pay checks to their bank accounts?
You claim a “the only reason is to kill” justification in relation to your nonsense missive about semi-auto firearms. That is false. Plus its an inhernt enumerated constitutional right we have here in the US and of course you can’t understand all this gives and implies because you have no frame of reference except that you can glean from drinking the anti-gun kool aid and you live in the modern day version of feudal tyranny.
So why don’t you kiss that poster of the Queen yoy have and dream of the day you too will be a queen out in public with adoring fans, and you know, don’t worry about our country.
Dude… You just argued FOR self defense in your first sentence. I’m literally laughing out loud.
Yes, that’s the purpose. Thanks for admitting it. This is the best thing I have seen on this website in a long time. Someone against guns admitting they exist to stop an attacker before they kill you.
Slow. Golf. Clap.
Albert – so you haven’t been reading much on the thousands of legal defensive uses of firearms every year? Yes there are and thankfully in many of them, the defender didn’t need to shoot the perpetrator. Our lovely major media centers don’t publish much on this, so you have to look in FBI stats and local news, as well as TTAG for stories like this.
Hey ALJHall, we’re talking about the 2nd A here, stay in your lane.
“…..Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way…..”
Learn it, know it, LIVE IT!
Now sod off you wanker.
Albert,
go drink some tea
do it on your knees in front of what ever royal master you currently worship
don’t forget to lick their boots when you’re down there
run along now – free people are talking…
Bob
Hey you leave tea out this or nobody gets any.
I thought we already explained to you Brits why we need our weapons, back in 1776 or so.
If it comes down to needs versus wants, all you need is a rock. Needs are food, water, shelter from the elements, and perhaps a fire or clothing suited to the climate.
If it were needs only, we would still be walking around bashing or stabbing critters with rocks or stone tipped spears. Harvesting whatever wild plants we could find and eat and wearing skins.
But, humans being what we are, when someone comes up with a new or better tool of any kind, many of us want it. Few of us honestly need smart phones, or tablet or lap top computers. We could get by with what many of us over 50 grew up with. A radio, or a Television that picked up a handful of stations, and the local newspaper. A vehicle that would struggle to go over 70KPH or 45MPH.
Sure, I could make due with some surplus Military Bolt rifle. Or an antique lever action rifle. I happen to like being able to get a second or third shot on target without having to manipulate the rifle.
Our Constitution, the basis of our form of governance, has the Bill of Rights, as the first 10 amendments. Not the Bill of Needs, or Bill of Allowances.
And, unlike a resident of the UK, I am a citizen of the United States, not a Subject of Her Majesties Government.
Last thing, You claim semi-automatic rifles are for nothing but killing our fellow human. So, just what was your hallowed bolt action Short Magazine Lee Enfield designed to do? I seem to remember it being used in 2 world wars and several colonial disputes.
Does anyone else find it odd that Albert claims to have been in the military but does not understand the concept of self-defense and defense of others.
I mean, in the military (all military forces around the world even in the UK) one is taught either directly (or indirectly by reference and physically in overall firearms training or combat training) that they can use a firearm to engage an enemy. The military trains how to engage an ‘enemy’ with a firearm to keep the enemy from killing you or others – that’s acts of self-defense and defense of others.
yet Albert claims to have been a “Armourer and Smallarms Instructor” in the UK military and does not understand this concept of self-defense and defense of others.
Albert claims:
“I was an Sergeant Armourer and Smallarms Instructor in the UK Royal Air Force for a number of years and a member of the UK Army Infantry Reserves. In the manner of things Military that’s about as professional as most would get and I trained literally hundreds of Boys and Girls to shoot and do it properly and under strict discipline and control. I can assure you that the GUN-FREAKS did NOT last long!”
He can assure us, based upon his “professional” acumen, that “GUN-FREAKS did NOT last long!”. But what? He is suppose to be this professional “Smallarms Instructor” and he can’t train “GUN-FREAKS” which are the very types of people that take to firearms training like a duck to water, yet instead they “did NOT last long” and where gotten rid and not trained?
Then he claims “I trained literally hundreds of Boys and Girls to shoot and do it properly and under strict discipline and control” but he doesn’t understand the basic concepts of self-defense and defense of others being at the core of staying alive when the military (yes even in the UK) are trained to engage an enemy with a firearm knowing the result is suppose to be to kill or disable the enemy so that are unable to fight, stop the enemy (bad guy) which is the very core of the purpose of self-defense and defense of others. So what the heck was he ‘teaching’ these members of the military, how to tickle and pillow fight?
This and many other things he has claimed over time in his posts in various articles comment sections that do not make sense. They are at odds with reality and his own claimed military service, and a lack understanding of the basics of firearms and ammunition that forms the basis of all military firearms training even in the UK, coupled with an overall lack of knowledge of firearms in general that even the most novice firearms person knows.
He has never been a “professional” “Armourer and Smallarms Instructor” in the UK military. He is a liar.
“Does anyone else find it odd that Albert claims to have been in the military but does not understand the concept of self-defense and defense of others.”
Why would UK military service lead to understanding the concept of self-defense and defense of others?
Sh!t gets deep and the UK calls up the USA. We send troops, ships, weapons and solve the problem.
Then we write off the lend lease and destroyer deals, letting the US taxpayers pay the tab for defending the UK.
Then the serfs turn in all the weapons for destruction, so they’re disarmed for the next crisis.
cUz qUeEn mUm SeZ sO. 🤪
“It still does NOT explain why anybody needs SEMI-AUTOMATIC Rifles.”
Well, it’s sort of like climbing Mount Everest: “Because it’s there.” Another Brit named Mallory. He may well have countered your musing- who knows.
Personally, I have “SEMI-AUTOMATIC Rifles” because they’re here, because I can, and because I’m not some serf Subject of the Crown in an in-bred society.
Everybody, look at the serf, Albert! He keeps serfing!
Thus blovivates the Euroweenie.
“It still does NOT explain why anybody needs SEMI-AUTOMATIC Rifles.”
What follows is explanatory, not debate; no response will be accepted.
The Second Amendment was written in the King’s English of the day. However, even modern Britons should be able to read and understand.
1. The need for weapons in the hands of the public was deterrence and victory over a government intent on using a standing army to make the US population subservient to the central government (this is clear in the writings and debates of the framers of the US Constitution. To ensure the populace retained sovereignty over the elected government through equivalence of, or superiority over, the standing army and politicians bent on using the standing army to defeat “the people”, and reign over them such as a king and a parliament were doing prior to the revolution.
2. In order to ensure a potentially rogue government fears attempting to establish all power in the central government, as weaponology increases/improves the military capability of government’s standing army, “the people” need to match, or exceed, the military power of the standing army.
3. In order to present a serious threat to a tyrannical government, “the people” need a full range of weapons of war, semi-auto weapons being a natural instrument (as are full-auto weapons).
4. To put a fine point on it, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have proper power to overthrow a rogue central government:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Every other element, or characteristic of firearm ownership is secondary, but not inferior.
Not to get too far afield but isn’t this about black folks allying with BlackLootersMurder? Which is a lowlife terrorist group who destroyed & murdered their own. Nuff said…
“Not to get too far afield but isn’t this about black folks allying with BlackLootersMurder?”
My comment is intended as a general response to anyone who, for any reason, demands a “needs” statement that they will agree with.
I think this particular BLM group is very different. Because they openly carry guns which the other blm groups refuse to do. And those groups have stated that the Second Amendment is bad for black people???
I see a lot of patriotism in both of these groups. Both of which want to hold the government accountable. Something I wish more people would do.
Having said that. I think both of these groups need to understand that the black lives matter Manifesto states that the second amendment should be repealed.
It’s perfectly consistent with the “oppressors vs oppressed” narrative that rules the day
“Armed white people are the oppressors.
Armed POC’s are reacting as any victim would. Their motivation is real their chosen action, acquiring guns, is unsophisticated and sophomoric no doubt a manifestation of 500 or whatever years of oppression.
The true and just answer is more government control to reign in those oppressors and make a safe feeling environment so the POC don’t feel the need to react to white supremacy by adopting tenants of said white supremacy, acquiring guns.”
I’ve lived and worked among these people for 30 years. Their schtick is pretty basic and single tracked.
And maybe RTBA groups/people need to co-mingle in all protests, endeavors, legal actions, range time ect
After all, it’s not a white, black, yellow, brown thing IMO. ..including the Fudd duck hunters too. lol. We all need to present a united front against the anti-gunners.
`just sayin
“…including the Fudd duck hunters too. lol. We all need to present a united front against the anti-gunners.”
The raised nail gets hammered. I want to protect my right to hunt ducks, and being seen associated with crazy gun zealots can only end with being rounded up by police, and jailed.
I gots mine, you gots to figure out how to keep yours. Nobody needs to hunt with more than one round in the chamber, and a single barrel. The more ammo you gots, the more waste, and less skill. “Aim small, miss small”.
Ba dip, ba dip, ba dip, that’s all folks.
Using terms like ‘fudd duck hunters’ is not going to get you support amongst hunters.
Point taken.
jwm,
Just as SOME “hunters” and ALL hoplophobic anti-gun zealots like to use the “you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt” argument (which is false; it depends what you’re hunting), we do ourselves a disservice by focusing ONLY on the “oppose tyranny” part of the equation. I agree that the PRIMARY purpose of the 2A was to insure the militia (organized and unorganized) had weapons, but the use of weapons for hunting, self-defense, and recreational shooting (not practiced much in 1776 – too expensive – but became increasingly popular in the late 19th and 20th centuries) are all recognized “justifications” for the 2A – not that we NEED a “justification”.
But I don’t look down on hunters, UNLESS they start babbling the whole “I’m a gun owner and a hunter, and nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt!” line of bullshit. AFAIAC, we should ALL ‘hang together’, or we shall all assuredly lose our rights together (Old Ben didn’t have it quite right).
“…we do ourselves a disservice by focusing ONLY on the “oppose tyranny” part of the equation. ”
Rarely seeing “oppose tyranny” cited
Because everything else issues from that one purpose (saying the Second Amendment protects hunting, sport, self-defense, and opposition to tyranny is not defensible under the 27 words) it is important to say “the quiet part” out loud, even with an “in your face” attitude. Doing so will enrage anti-gunners and the Dims, while also serving as a “gut-check” for people who claim to support 2A.
You are quite correct, sir. Grammatically, and philosophically, you are correct, HOWEVER (and isn’t there always a big “but”??), we are also dealing with a very fraught political landscape. Despite our recent “wins” (Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and hopefully a few more to come), not only have the Leftist/fascists not given up, they are becoming desperate, and doubling down. SCOTUS told them their gun control measures were ALREADY unconstitutional, and they . . . doubled down. “Sure, we’ll give you a carry permit, AFTER we dig through your social media, force you to go through an ‘in person’ interview to evaluate your character (obviously HIGHLY subjective AND unconstitutional), make you wait, make you pay absurd fees, etc.”
We simply need “all hands on deck”. The Left is at their most dangerous, despicable, and deranged when they are desperate (see what I did, there?), which is where they are today. I’m not about to chase away a fellow gun owner who only uses his shotgun for duck hunting, so long as he isn’t spewing the “no one needs” nonsense. We need every voter, potential contributor, potential letter writer, etc. we can get. They won’t back down, so we CAN’T back down. They’ve already proven that, once surrendered, they will allow a right to be restored (to a large extent, quite literally) over their “dead bodies”. We not only can’t afford to give ONE INCH of ground, we need to take back the last half dozen or so hills we gave up to “compromise” with these uncompromising bastards.
On a historical level, my personal historical research into the 2A impels me to the conclusion that, if you had your magic time machine, and could go back and dicuss this in person with the Founding Fathers, and explained this “issue” to them, they would think you daft. They never considered that the ownership and use of personal arms for hunting OR self-defense would ever be an issue. King George was already MAKING ownership and possession of “military” arms an issue, so the Founders addressed it.
But, fortunately, they were smart enough to say “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the “right of the militia”, or “the right of the States for use by the militia”, but the right of the PEOPLE – which is NEVER used in the Constitution to describe a “collective” right, EVER. And, as we’re all fond of pointing out to prevaricating idiots like MinorIQ and dacian the stupid, it isn’t “will not be taken away”, it’s “will not be INFRINGED”.
So, pretty much, I don’t think it matters a whole lot WHAT you want the gun for . . . it is your RIGHT to purchase, build, acquire (other than through theft), keep, possess, bear, and USE firearms. And f*** ’em if they can’t take a joke.
@Dude
“You usually have to know where to look to find alternative views.”
Evading Google search is the first step.
But, all-in-all, Dims and Leftists find searching for information that is non-confirming is too hard, and the information illegitimate to boot.
Which search engines do you recommend?
Sam,
Is it that searching for such information is “too hard”, or is it that they don’t WANT to be provided with information that would upset their indoctrinated world view?? I read (as painful as it is) sites like TPM, CNN, MSDNC, Daily Kos, etc., every day . . . I want to know what the enemy is thinking/planning. Leftists, with few exceptions, NEVER frequent their opposite numbers. And, since Leftists control most (all?) of the “online ecology”, they deliberately make it difficult to find information and viewpoints that challenge their false-to-fact narratives.
“Is it that searching for such information is “too hard”, or is it that they don’t WANT to be provided with information that would upset their indoctrinated world view??”
Potential upset is part of “too hard”, but I think most are just lazy, and so long as news outlets don’t require personal research, contemplation, and self-examination, those likely to be “upset” are happy with a relative lack of personal involvement.
The media is a joke. Remember that time the Puppet wanted to act tough and retaliate for the consequences of putting our servicemen in danger? He ordered a drone strike on ten people so he would be seen as taking out terrorists. Except it was an innocent family with children and an aid worker who had been working for a US-based charity for over a decade. Then they tried to cover it up. First they said it was a terrorist. Then they said there was a secondary explosion from explosives on site. You know, because he was a terrorist. The media faithfully reported .gov talking points until they could no longer ignore reality, at which point they dumped the story. That was a mass killing, just no AR involved. You would think the media would be all over that.
The media was still discussing Trump’s claims about crowd size years after his inauguration. Yet those same people immediately dumped this story about the Puppet killing an innocent family, including children. I understand some people don’t seek out independent research on subjects. But after the Russia Hoax debacle, how does anyone take the media seriously? That was the biggest story for three years, but the fact it was a hoax perpetrated at the highest levels (including Obama) wasn’t a story? Hmm…
Democrats must still take the media very seriously, otherwise how could they still be democrats?
Since when has there ever been a “gun rights rally” that could ever been taken seriously?…Sad to say, the only ones that can get together and make serious noise are the sissy ANTI GUNNERS such as Gavid Hogg…PRO GUNNERS have put all their faith in RINOs, Wayne La-Pee-pee and voting on dominion machines…That is not workin out to well, as of late…
In your view, what would make a rally be worth taking seriously?
Media has historically been bias in Our country. Even as far back as Pre Revolutionary War Times. Two things have helped to bring that realization to the forefront of the American people. The 24 hour news cycle that allowed pundits to fill in slack time slots with more opinion based Talk-Speak. Which only emboldened Liberal/Progressive Pundits to openly spew their Ideology and Agendas. Showing many people for the first time exactly who and what they were and President Trump, who was the the First Republican to actually take on the fake News media 1 on 1. Make No mistake their has never been News without political spin, either with straight up distortion of the facts or simply not reporting all the pertinent facts of a story.
“Whatever your feelings about guns — I personally am not a fan — …”
Thats ok to not be a fan.
But ill bet you are a fan of the 1st Amendment not being infringed by government.
So, boog now? If not now, when?
“There are a lot of taboos on commercial television, which for instance doesn’t like to show scenes of poverty (unless it’s being chased by police), rarely interviews non-voters, almost never does military contracting fraud stories, and seldom shows results on the ground of American military/drone strikes, even if they’ve already appeared on the airwaves of other countries.”
30, 40, 50 years ago, TV news in the USA showed everything you mentioned and they showed it almost every night and practically nothing else.
The Boogaloo Boys are a bunch of lolbertarian morons
“Libertarian Anarchists” that believe in accelerationism is a bad thing? Considering the right enjoys the boots of the blue line and religion, and the left enjoys the boots of big government and racism, I’d say a little chaotic freedom doesn’t sound so bad. It’s pretty obvious that majority of people who identified with the movement – even as a joke online – have zero trust in politics in general. But some idiots just need a flag to fly…
“I’d say a little chaotic freedom doesn’t sound so bad.”
Just a note….
“Freedom” and “Liberty” are not synonyms.
They really are not the same thing at all. Liberty is “the state of being free in a society” – or in other words: The illusion of freedom. You may not be physically restrained, but you are not free. Liberty is a political slogan.
Sam,
Too deep a concept for Montana to wrap his mind around. What particularly amuses me is that the supposed anarchist types would s*** a brick the first time a larger, stronger, better-armed banjo-pickin’ redneck walked up and said, “Boy, you got a purty mouth!” Their idea of “complete freedom” is like communism – it’s intellectual cotton candy. Looks pretty, but has no substance. Maximum individual liberty within MINIMUM structure of society actually works. Our current problem is that we keep chipping away at it from both end – we ain’t anywhere near “maximum individual liberty” and we’ve gone WAY beyond “minimum structure”.
Media.
Propaganda, drink it.
mmm… I want some of that purple stuff.
I’ll drink only if it at least 100 proof. Get drunk and shoot some big gunsezz.
100 proof?? Piker!!
Need ya some REAL ‘shine, or at least some Everclear!!
Now, shootin’ some big gunsezz sounds pretty good – but NOT after the ‘shine (I’l picky about that).
To the media and anti-gun if you are a white gun owner .. you are a racists far right wing radical extreamist terrorist that bathes in the blood of the innocent and can lay waste to whole cities with a single 5.56 or 9 mm round from an infinity-rounds magazine that makes you be able to fire your semi-auto firearm so fast that it makes the speed of light jealous.
To the media and anti-gun if you are a black gun owner… you don’t exist.
Not true… they might share a story if one in the group shoots themselves in the foot, or if one carries a stove piped “bullpup”. lol. (JK. Of course people had to force feed that shit on social media and even then – no story)
“Not true… they might share a story if one in the group shoots themselves in the foot, or if one carries a stove piped “bullpup”.”
at which point … the media will portray the black gun owner as a ‘prop’ or SJW or a victim ensnared by the evil cunning of the firearms industry through its marketing, and indirectly blame it on the white devil gun owners.
Ok, just kidding with that…
But look at it really. Overall big corporation MSM uses black people as ‘props’ in their agenda story’s. For example, its not a law abiding male black gun owner enjoying a firearms hobby but its firearms are being purchased by “young black men at alarming rates” then goes on to frame gun crime and one is left with the impression that firearms are being purchased by “young black men at alarming rates and the violent gun crime rate is going up”.
MSM is overall racist and anti-constitution as is the whole anti-gun industry. Its no wonder they are attracted to each other.
and why, the MSM, its is “alarming” that law abiding “young black men” or black people overall are purchasing firearms to begin with?
Are they not citizens also able to enjoy the protections and rights the constitution provides?
Our country, and even more so in states with democrat government, gives a lot of ‘allowances” to criminals. Its made sure, overall, their rights and protections under the constitution are given them, even basic human rights not specifically enumerated or mentioned in the constitution but they are called ‘constitutional guarantees’ none the less.
But a law abiding black person can’t have a firearm without it being somehow “alarming” and part of a problem of firearms violence?
Its not just black people though, its all law abiding gun owners in general, its “alarming” and part of a problem of firearms violence to MSM. Its never hobby or home/self defense or sporting or exercise of the 2nd amendment – its always “alarming” and part of a problem of firearms violence to MSM.
It is not law abiding gun owners that are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or what ever race or demographic that is part of a problem of firearms violence. Overall, gun owners are the top law abiding group (collectively) in the United States — overall gun owners collectively have a lot fewer accidents and mishaps (in context with guns) than any other demographic in the United States that may use a non-firearm thing that can be ‘dangerous’ (e.g. automobiles) — overall collectively gun owners are the lest likely demographic to actually want to use a firearm to shoot anyone, ‘police forces’ (federal and civilian) are more prone to want to actually shoot someone — overall collectively gun owners, even if they have not been ‘trained’, when a gun is used for defense and they actually fire they are more less likely to hit an innocent than a police officer is in the same situation. But MSM amplifies a gun owner mishap or accident as if its all gun owners and a problem for society when in reality the public is literally safer around gun owners overall than they are riding in a car or using hundreds of other non-firearm things.
and in addition…
An anti-gun complaint concept is that the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen, or lack of a strict may-issue junta, or ‘permitless’ constitutional carry, makes it easier for a person to lawfully kill someone.
That is 100% pure BS.
The law, from the moment a person comes into possession of a firearm, imposes a “duty and care” requirement concept that is not present in the use of any other ‘thing’ decided to be dangerous that is in general use in general society. In fact the law, constitutional carry or may-issue or shall-issue or not, makes it harder for a lawful gun owner to shoot someone legally.
The way its talked about it in the gun community makes it seem somehow easy legally – you see people post about how they shot someone trying to kill them and its was ‘automatically’ legally self-defense. Well actually, its not ‘automatically’ legally self-defense even though physically in the moment it may have been. Legally its not that easy because every action the gun owner defender took is going to be scrutinized, and the slightest thing that a prosecutors office thinks might be wrong is going to be called into question. And a lot of people don’t know it but most self-defense shootings end up being presented to a grand jury behind the scenes even if the defender did everything perfectly and the grand jury can decide to indict or not. I found this out in my first self-defense shooting, that despite the police and the prosecutor saying it was clearly self-defense that it still had to be presented to a grand jury for them to decide to indict or not and they didn’t indict. Sure, the grand jury thing might not happen in all cases of self-defense but think about the anti-gun cause for a minute and realize that anti-gun people are also on grand juries and regular juries and in prosecutors offices and in police forces as well – and they, overall, will be looking at a self-defense shooting with their anti-gun bias. So the burden imposed by “duty and care” requirement concept used in law for people who posses guns, makes it harder not more easy to shoot someone legally.
I was on a jury in a self-defense shooting several years ago. The guy did everything perfectly, and although he had no duty to retreat he tried to avoid and even run away before he even touched his firearm. The surveillance video was pretty clear – two guys, one with knife the other with a tire iron approached and started stabbing and swinging at him with their weapons – as they approached he saw them coming and started going the other way and when they sped up and got close enough started trying to stab and hit him then he ran away. But they pursued him and got him cornered, and he had no other choice then so he draws from the holster and starts firing. The bad guys go down, not dead but wounded, and in the process they dropped their weapons but he fired two more rounds after they dropped their weapons as they were going down. The prosecution made a big deal out of this as ‘excessive’ force thus not self-defense. The law did not define the number of rounds one may fire, only, basically, that the threat be stopped. But the law also has an ‘excessive’ force concept that is implied but never defined clearly. The case got to the courtroom, we ruled it self-defense because it was self-defense as even with the two additional rounds and they having dropped their weapons on the video it can be clearly seen one of the bad guys is showing the will to not be stopped and has grabbed the knife he dropped and starts trying to get up with it thus was still a threat.
@Montana Actual
“Liberty is a political slogan.”
Liberty is a state of not being compelled to act; exempt from all unjust abridgment of rights and independence by another.
Freedom is exemption from power or control of another.
@Craig in IA
“No… They only believe the government when it’s majority is on “their side”. ”
Yep, that was my intended message.
@LampOfDiogenes
“I’m not about to chase away a fellow gun owner who only uses his shotgun for duck hunting,…”
Thinking FUDDs aren’t there to begin with; no need to worry about chasing them away.
Sam,
You may be right; I hope you are wrong. Because you and I (and others on this site) KNOW that, once we are disarmed, they’ll go after the Fudds next. “No one needs to hunt! You can buy food in the store! Killing Bambi is wrong!!” Or, hell, the one they’ve ALREADY started, “You must use an absurdly expensive, hard-to-find ammunition that damages your firearm, because some idiot professor somewhere has a theory, and a few manufactured statistics, that you are harming Gaia by your hunting.”
THEY need to stand with US, or we won’t be around to stand with them.
“THEY need to stand with US, or we won’t be around to stand with them.”
Pretty sure FUDDS are thinking about being chased by a bear; they don’t need to out run the bear, only out run us.
@Lamp
“Too deep a concept for Montana to wrap his mind around.”
I have a little more confidence in MA.
Comments are closed.