Granted, I live nowhere near Idaho, and their campaigns to have "Oops All Guns!" in their little corner of the world isn't likely to affect me in anyway, but I am just annoyed of them getting high...
Granted, I live nowhere near Idaho, and their campaigns to have "Oops All Guns!" in their little corner of the world isn't likely to affect me in anyway, but I am just annoyed of them getting high off each other's fear to ensure that they will always have away to kill themselves and others, as the good Lord intended. How do you deal with that mindset, that the Gun-God Abortigration is their birthright and the one thing that seperates man from the animals, but an attempt to have it fully realized negativity impacts anyone else around you?
It's a surprisingly challenging question you raise ... how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters, in a free society where those people are breaking...
It's a surprisingly challenging question you raise ... how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters, in a free society where those people are breaking no laws?
Perhaps a good start would be to try to reword it in your own mind, to be more how I just wrote it and less how you did?
Crap. See, even that last sentence of mine sounds confrontational ... I'm really trying to come at this objectively, but it's hard.
PS: I'm pro-gun-nut; see my additional comments down below.
I don't really have a problem with guns so much as I have a problem with people who are Gun Stans, to borrow some fandom lingo. In my eyes, it's all the entitlement, -isms and -oginys of pop...
I don't really have a problem with guns so much as I have a problem with people who are Gun Stans, to borrow some fandom lingo. In my eyes, it's all the entitlement, -isms and -oginys of pop entertainment culture, coupled with the nationalism turn jingoism of being in the country with all the guns making it the best country, and the fear exploit of "taking guns" used to justify anything and everything from the Right.
I get that you have issues with the Right, AND think that guns are constitutionally endowned to citizens to defend themselves from powers that be. I have friends and family who only want to live as their gender, and could use all the help that they can get to defend themselves, federally supported and otherwise. And I know that Gun control could very well manifest itself as "let's be racist and oppressive" because it has happened.
And yet, if anyone can get their hands on any gun, then that just offsets equality and the respect of life to the private sector for those who can afford it, as opposed to also being federally backed as part of the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that we were going for. Enough personal wealth to buy a gun or a better gun or a bunch of guns doesn't make you more worthwhile than someone who doesn't have one, but enough people act like it does for it to be a problem.
So if I can ask you a question, how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters, in a free society where those people are breaking no laws? Do we hurl insults at one another, change the laws to serve the people, change the people to serve the laws, or have a conversation with each other where we both talk, and neither of us listen? I'm up for anything at this point.
Oooh, you've given me a wonderful idea ... the Gun Ownership ERA, aka Gun Ownership Welfare, wherein the poor, downtrodden people of color can receive guns (and ammo) from the govt to defend...
Exemplary
Oooh, you've given me a wonderful idea ... the Gun Ownership ERA, aka Gun Ownership Welfare, wherein the poor, downtrodden people of color can receive guns (and ammo) from the govt to defend themselves against the wealthy white racist gun owners ... (I may only be half joking, here. Still thinking about it).
So if I can ask you a question, how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters, in a free society where those people are breaking no laws? Do we hurl insults at one another, change the laws to serve the people, change the people to serve the laws, or have a conversation with each other where we both talk, and neither of us listen?
Yeah, like I said, this is a tricky one. And I sure don't have a perfect solution, but here's a couple ideas.
Simplest, which I've literally been advocating for, for decades, is to keep talking to the opposition ... not arguing, not insulting, but talking, politely and civilly ... and not necessarily even about the topic(s) of disagreement.
Same idea, much more challenging, is to change how we converse. Faux News, Facebook, the Google filter bubble, the 24-hour "must-have-conflict" news cycle, all these things that people have passively accepted into their lives and society ... these things are all pushing everyone towards more closed-minded, extremist, siloed, perspectives, dehumanizing the opposition, etc ... we need to, first of all, stop using these things, and second, figure out how to disassemble and remove them from society, replaced with better communication/information tools ... ideally, tools whose development is not monetized by advertisement.
Third, biggest challenge ... the political process in the US is fundamentally broken. It has been since, at least, the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, and probably long before.
My first choice for President in 2016 (Sanders was my #2 ... both of them received money from me) was a guy few people have heard of, Lawrence Lessig whose primary platform was that, regardless of what your personal "most important issue" is, you cannot fix it until we all get together to fix this issue first.
Unfortunately, I think it's even worse than Lessig claims. Apart from the "money in politics" issue, we also have the issue of the firmly-entrenched political party duopoly. As long as we have only two choices, only two parties with any chance of winning, especially where both parties are often equally bought-out by the very same people, we do not actually have a democratic goverment, but only the illusion of one.
We tried that once, in California. Republicans whipped up gun control so fast, it made people's heads spin. As soon as minorities start arming themselves, that's when you get gun control. Even...
Oooh, you've given me a wonderful idea ... the Gun Ownership ERA, aka Gun Ownership Welfare, wherein the poor, downtrodden people of color can receive guns (and ammo) from the govt to defend themselves against the wealthy white racist gun owners
We tried that once, in California. Republicans whipped up gun control so fast, it made people's heads spin.
As soon as minorities start arming themselves, that's when you get gun control. Even today's gun control laws target minorities disproportionately, and even if a POC follows the law regarding gun ownership, they're still liable to be shot dead by police.
Even the second amendment itself was drawn up to ensure slave owners could put down revolting slaves, and the militias were called "Slave Patrols".
Regarding Gun-Welfare: I'm pretty sure the Black Panthers tried something similar back in the day, maybe you might get further with hypothetical government backing? But assuming every single gun...
Regarding Gun-Welfare: I'm pretty sure the Black Panthers tried something similar back in the day, maybe you might get further with hypothetical government backing? But assuming every single gun isn't lost in the mail, you would probably get a whole lot more people shot, a lot of them by police since if everyone has a gun, everyone is considered armed. Assuming that there isn't more deferment to police, since everyone is expected to be armed, and the general populace would not want to get into a gun fight with a trained police officer, and that's less than ideal as well.
As an extremely left leaning gun owner/enthusiast, it's simple: You don't. And why would you? No fundamentalist on any view is going to change their mind, they wouldn't be a fundamentalist if they...
So if I can ask you a question, how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters
As an extremely left leaning gun owner/enthusiast, it's simple: You don't.
And why would you?
No fundamentalist on any view is going to change their mind, they wouldn't be a fundamentalist if they would. So any effort to "deal" with a fundamentalist is one of futility.
In reality, there aren't nearly as many fundamentalists as you are led to believe and so if you want to "deal" with someone that disagrees with you on life-and-death matters, then you both come to the table with open minds, a willingness to reason, and ability to accept that your views just might be wrong. If you both can't do so, then it's a wasted effort and we return to the question of why even attempt such.
I know, it just kinda sucks that mass shootings at schools kinda became white noise, but anyone who wants to have a conversation beyond, "Yes, we want to have a conversation" gets immediately...
I know, it just kinda sucks that mass shootings at schools kinda became white noise, but anyone who wants to have a conversation beyond, "Yes, we want to have a conversation" gets immediately countered by "No, we don't." I get that I can't borrow my big purple friend's magic glove and snap guns out of existence, but at the same time, we can't even get the CDC to investigate gun deaths because zealots elected to the government to protect their constituent's guns are afraid that the studies might prove a correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership and I'm frustrated that we cannot do anything and this is going to be the meta for a while.
It's the sort of thing that causes mass shootings. All those guys with manifestos were afraid of something and decided to murder random people, who might not have even been part of the group...
I am just annoyed of them getting high off each other's fear to ensure that they will always have away to kill themselves and others, as the good Lord intended.
It's the sort of thing that causes mass shootings. All those guys with manifestos were afraid of something and decided to murder random people, who might not have even been part of the group they're afraid of.
There are many, many things going on in the world, some of them terrible, that we have no control over. This is another one. So, I guess we deal with it by accepting it, and move on to better...
There are many, many things going on in the world, some of them terrible, that we have no control over. This is another one. So, I guess we deal with it by accepting it, and move on to better possibilities.
America's fixation with guns is unique in the world. Violence in the US has been declining since the early 90s. The call to arms makes a little more sense in my own violent country (which doesn't...
America's fixation with guns is unique in the world. Violence in the US has been declining since the early 90s. The call to arms makes a little more sense in my own violent country (which doesn't mean it makes sense...), but the US lives in an unjustified paranoia.
I originally posted that the article was too long, but I ultimately got sucked in, skim-read most of it, even watched most of the Herndon video trying to get into the concert. On many subjects, I...
I originally posted that the article was too long, but I ultimately got sucked in, skim-read most of it, even watched most of the Herndon video trying to get into the concert.
On many subjects, I lean Left by necessity ... by which, I mean that I'm actually Conservative-minded (Libertarian-leaning, specifically), but that, year after year for decades, the US Republican party has become more and more batshit crazy, effectively forcing me to side with the Dems.
All of which is to say that, on the 2nd Amendment issue, I agree with the "gun nuts" almost 100%. I won't go into it unless someone wants to debate, just puting it out there.
Granted, I live nowhere near Idaho, and their campaigns to have "Oops All Guns!" in their little corner of the world isn't likely to affect me in anyway, but I am just annoyed of them getting high off each other's fear to ensure that they will always have away to kill themselves and others, as the good Lord intended. How do you deal with that mindset, that the Gun-God Abortigration is their birthright and the one thing that seperates man from the animals, but an attempt to have it fully realized negativity impacts anyone else around you?
It's a surprisingly challenging question you raise ... how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters, in a free society where those people are breaking no laws?
Perhaps a good start would be to try to reword it in your own mind, to be more how I just wrote it and less how you did?
Crap. See, even that last sentence of mine sounds confrontational ... I'm really trying to come at this objectively, but it's hard.
PS: I'm pro-gun-nut; see my additional comments down below.
I don't really have a problem with guns so much as I have a problem with people who are Gun Stans, to borrow some fandom lingo. In my eyes, it's all the entitlement, -isms and -oginys of pop entertainment culture, coupled with the nationalism turn jingoism of being in the country with all the guns making it the best country, and the fear exploit of "taking guns" used to justify anything and everything from the Right.
I get that you have issues with the Right, AND think that guns are constitutionally endowned to citizens to defend themselves from powers that be. I have friends and family who only want to live as their gender, and could use all the help that they can get to defend themselves, federally supported and otherwise. And I know that Gun control could very well manifest itself as "let's be racist and oppressive" because it has happened.
And yet, if anyone can get their hands on any gun, then that just offsets equality and the respect of life to the private sector for those who can afford it, as opposed to also being federally backed as part of the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that we were going for. Enough personal wealth to buy a gun or a better gun or a bunch of guns doesn't make you more worthwhile than someone who doesn't have one, but enough people act like it does for it to be a problem.
So if I can ask you a question, how do you deal with people who fundamentally disagree with you on life-and-death matters, in a free society where those people are breaking no laws? Do we hurl insults at one another, change the laws to serve the people, change the people to serve the laws, or have a conversation with each other where we both talk, and neither of us listen? I'm up for anything at this point.
Oooh, you've given me a wonderful idea ... the Gun Ownership ERA, aka Gun Ownership Welfare, wherein the poor, downtrodden people of color can receive guns (and ammo) from the govt to defend themselves against the wealthy white racist gun owners ... (I may only be half joking, here. Still thinking about it).
Yeah, like I said, this is a tricky one. And I sure don't have a perfect solution, but here's a couple ideas.
Simplest, which I've literally been advocating for, for decades, is to keep talking to the opposition ... not arguing, not insulting, but talking, politely and civilly ... and not necessarily even about the topic(s) of disagreement.
Same idea, much more challenging, is to change how we converse. Faux News, Facebook, the Google filter bubble, the 24-hour "must-have-conflict" news cycle, all these things that people have passively accepted into their lives and society ... these things are all pushing everyone towards more closed-minded, extremist, siloed, perspectives, dehumanizing the opposition, etc ... we need to, first of all, stop using these things, and second, figure out how to disassemble and remove them from society, replaced with better communication/information tools ... ideally, tools whose development is not monetized by advertisement.
Third, biggest challenge ... the political process in the US is fundamentally broken. It has been since, at least, the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, and probably long before.
My first choice for President in 2016 (Sanders was my #2 ... both of them received money from me) was a guy few people have heard of, Lawrence Lessig whose primary platform was that, regardless of what your personal "most important issue" is, you cannot fix it until we all get together to fix this issue first.
Unfortunately, I think it's even worse than Lessig claims. Apart from the "money in politics" issue, we also have the issue of the firmly-entrenched political party duopoly. As long as we have only two choices, only two parties with any chance of winning, especially where both parties are often equally bought-out by the very same people, we do not actually have a democratic goverment, but only the illusion of one.
</soapbox>That's my dos centavos. Make of it what you will.
Plan B? Start buying guns...
We tried that once, in California. Republicans whipped up gun control so fast, it made people's heads spin.
As soon as minorities start arming themselves, that's when you get gun control. Even today's gun control laws target minorities disproportionately, and even if a POC follows the law regarding gun ownership, they're still liable to be shot dead by police.
Even the second amendment itself was drawn up to ensure slave owners could put down revolting slaves, and the militias were called "Slave Patrols".
Regarding Gun-Welfare: I'm pretty sure the Black Panthers tried something similar back in the day, maybe you might get further with hypothetical government backing? But assuming every single gun isn't lost in the mail, you would probably get a whole lot more people shot, a lot of them by police since if everyone has a gun, everyone is considered armed. Assuming that there isn't more deferment to police, since everyone is expected to be armed, and the general populace would not want to get into a gun fight with a trained police officer, and that's less than ideal as well.
As an extremely left leaning gun owner/enthusiast, it's simple: You don't.
And why would you?
No fundamentalist on any view is going to change their mind, they wouldn't be a fundamentalist if they would. So any effort to "deal" with a fundamentalist is one of futility.
In reality, there aren't nearly as many fundamentalists as you are led to believe and so if you want to "deal" with someone that disagrees with you on life-and-death matters, then you both come to the table with open minds, a willingness to reason, and ability to accept that your views just might be wrong. If you both can't do so, then it's a wasted effort and we return to the question of why even attempt such.
I know, it just kinda sucks that mass shootings at schools kinda became white noise, but anyone who wants to have a conversation beyond, "Yes, we want to have a conversation" gets immediately countered by "No, we don't." I get that I can't borrow my big purple friend's magic glove and snap guns out of existence, but at the same time, we can't even get the CDC to investigate gun deaths because zealots elected to the government to protect their constituent's guns are afraid that the studies might prove a correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership and I'm frustrated that we cannot do anything and this is going to be the meta for a while.
It's the sort of thing that causes mass shootings. All those guys with manifestos were afraid of something and decided to murder random people, who might not have even been part of the group they're afraid of.
There are many, many things going on in the world, some of them terrible, that we have no control over. This is another one. So, I guess we deal with it by accepting it, and move on to better possibilities.
America's fixation with guns is unique in the world. Violence in the US has been declining since the early 90s. The call to arms makes a little more sense in my own violent country (which doesn't mean it makes sense...), but the US lives in an unjustified paranoia.
I originally posted that the article was too long, but I ultimately got sucked in, skim-read most of it, even watched most of the Herndon video trying to get into the concert.
On many subjects, I lean Left by necessity ... by which, I mean that I'm actually Conservative-minded (Libertarian-leaning, specifically), but that, year after year for decades, the US Republican party has become more and more batshit crazy, effectively forcing me to side with the Dems.
All of which is to say that, on the 2nd Amendment issue, I agree with the "gun nuts" almost 100%. I won't go into it unless someone wants to debate, just puting it out there.