Should we label “straight male violence” just so we see the full board?

[OddBeMe]

I mean…. anti trans laws could drive some imbalanced individuals to violence.

But stats show trans people are 10x more likely to be victims of violence.

We should label all sex orients

We should stop fcking labeling all together

[msc545]

The whole militia concept is just another name for an armed gang of thugs. In this day and age no government needs a militia. We have a huge army and lots and lots of national guard people. Not to mention police and all sorts of other organizations. Nobody needs a militia except the right wing so that they can terrify others and act out their racist fantasies.

[Sasahara]

No. Leftists who struggle to define the difference between men and women would not be able to support such an idea. For all they know, all shooters might actually be female. And even if the shooter claim otherwise, the leftist can’t trust the shooter. They might be wrong.

[OddBeMe]

Actually we “leftists” don’t care how anyone defines it. Be they a scientist or a tranny. Your side can’t handle that.

[Snakeyes7]

Wow, it is amazing how quickly the left will jump to defend a school shooter as soon as the shooter just so happens to be one of their protected classes.

[goaded]

Wow, it's amazing how quickly the right will accuse people of something they're not doing to distract from someone pointing out what they're doing.

You have nearly two mass shootings a day in the US (you'd had 83 by the end of February this year), but the only time you mention someone's sexuality is when it suits you. You should be having a trans person committing a mass shooting every couple of months, if they were as dangerous as the average American. You don't.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded Mass shootings didn't become mainstream until the turn of the 21st century with the columbine shooting and we have always had the second amendment. Not just that, there used to be gun clubs in schools in which students bring guns into school to keep into their locker.

Something else is the problem and taking away the guns will only stop a symptom of this problem. Trust me if guns were the problem, way more people will be dying from gunshots and the streets would be a literal warzone. Ironically, the most common place where it might as well be that are the ghettos in major cities where gun control is supposedly the strictest.

[OddBeMe]

How many people need to die from guns? there's already 30,000 shot every year. Ask @goafed how many Krauts are shot a year.

Tell him, kraut. :)

[Sevenpointfive]

i don't think that's the guys name. maybe goaded?

[OddBeMe]

@Sevenpointfive that’s the German spelling.

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 Noting that you're trying to distract from the facts that say you should have a mass shooting by a trans person every couple of months on average, but don't, and you only mention sexuality when it's not in the 99% of straight killers...

The NRA used to teach gun safety, the proper uses for firearms (mostly hunting), didn't have a problem with reasonable restrictions on firearms (like those imposed by Reagan as governor of California), and gun manufacturers didn't sell AR-15 style weapons openly, let alone advertise them or give them cool names.

"[Richard E.] Dyke brought the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which had been considered taboo to market to civilians, into general circulation, and helped keep it there."
www.propublica.org/.../how-bushmaster-made-ar-15-into-best-selling-rifle-us

This whole idea that the second amendment means there should be no regulation at all is new and barely seen before the late 1990s.

In Germany, with a quarter the population of the US, 40-50 people are murdered using firearms a year.

[Juxtapose]

Guns are not the problem, Americans have had guns for a long time and the founding fathers even allowed civilians to put cannons on their ships. So fuck off with this European disarmament bullshit. Keep that shit in your fuckrat countries.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose The biggest problem is Americans thinking that violence is a good way to solve problems. Giving them guns just makes it easier and more deadly.

How many people could afford a ship to hold those cannon?

[Snakeyes7]

@OddBeMe Pretty sure 20k of those were suicides. Then we have to factor things like self defense, accidental shootings, non-mass shooting firearm murders, and gang violence.

@goaded I don't give a single flying shit about what the NRA does or says. They aren't responsible for why the average person is allowed to own firearms, it is the second amendment. The NRA can collapse for all I care.

As Jux said, if people could afford it, they were allowed to own cannons, all sorts of pistols and rifles, and even warships. Yet for some reason we have a problem with gun ownership now. Almost like the government wants to do something we would be shooting them for.

[Juxtapose]

"As Jux said, if people could afford it, they were allowed to own cannons, all sorts of pistols and rifles, and even warships. Yet for some reason we have a problem with gun ownership now. Almost like the government wants to do something we would be shooting them for."

THANK YOU!

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 The NRA and greedy capitalists are the people who have sold the idea that everyone should have military style weapons. Nobody thought that was a good idea 100 years ago, but now people seem to think that sedition is a perfectly acceptable respose to losing elections.

The reason people needed firearms when the country was new was because it was a small, new, relatively powerless country surrounded by massive empires and it needed to be able to call up a well regulated (meaning rich people calling themselves Colonel and recruiting people to fight) militia. Things have changed in the centuries between then and now.

Who, exactly, do you think is in a position to invade the US today? Do you think you'll be the one on the front lines if Putin tries to take Alaska back?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded the second amendment is to protect us from our own government.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose No, it's not. It's to provide the duly elected civilian government with an armed militia in times of need. Who else do you think should regulate a militia?

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded That everyone SHOULD have military style weapons? I don't agree with that, I think people should be able to buy military grade weapons if they so desire. That's not the same thing.

So what if people don't need firearms anymore? That does not necessitate the possession of the ones people just happen to own. Law abiding citizens buy weapons in the hopes that they don't have to use it but will be there if they do. Allowing citizens to have guns is not being ok with them shooting and killing each other with them, which was always illegal in case you haven't figured out.

The second amendment is for foreign and domestic threats, including our own government. It was intended for governments because the founding fathers just won a revolution from a king that has no qualms murdering civilians on the streets in cold blood.

It is not just militias, it is the "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms."

[OddBeMe]

Currently scotus agrees. But like Roe, we could argue to actually read the damn 2a and see the first phrase of “regulated militia” as important.

[Snakeyes7]

And the second part saying that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You don't get to conveniently ignore that part just be able to achieve your dream of disarming people without due process.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded actually that is in complete disagreement with the current Supreme Court interpretation. You do not need to be part of any sort of organization whatsoever to exercise your second amendment.

[Juxtapose]

And like I said, the founding fathers allowed civilian ships to have cannons on them.

[Juxtapose]

We don't have to go buy this bullshit European model. We're better than that.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Yes, and SCOTUS is never wrong, is it? English ships could carry cannon back in the day as well - there were pirates. Things have moved on.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded well actually they don't go far enough, any infringement on the second amendment is utterly unconstitutional. States do not have a right to regulate firearms the way they do.

Yeah, you pussy Europeans couldn't handle that shit. Us Americans put canons on civilian ships because we can 💪

Where's your military now? Oh yeah, you guys lost and got castrated. Now you are slaves to the EU.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose I’m not disputing the scotus rulings. I’m just saying like roe it’s not safe and a first year law school could punch holes with “regulated militia”.

[Juxtapose]

Literally everything about the Constitution can be changed through an amendment so I don't know why that is special information. Good fucking luck changing that though.

"What does well regulated militia mean in the Second Amendment?

It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."

www.google.com/.../CNN_Aug_11.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiy2vapuLKFAxXR5MkDHagCAWsQFnoECBMQBg&usg=AOvVaw2p8YP4AgVcmYG1d1RRJVr5

"Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."

constitutioncenter.org/.../99

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose sure…. but there are clauses and rights more deeper ingrained than others. But true.

Like I said, if we had the will power a first year law student could argue for a regulated militia.

[Juxtapose]

No, clauses and rights are not more deeply ingrained than others. That is your imagination. It takes the same amount of votes to change whatever you want in the Constitution.

Oh give me a break, I just showed you how the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were both against restrictions on a citizen's right to own firearms. Come take it from our cold, dead hands you Marxist bastards.

[Juxtapose]

To anyone who happens to read this who owns guns? Never register them, a registry is a first step towards confiscation.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose I’m saying there are rights like voting, per se, that are spoken of more often…thus deeper ingrained than guns.

[OddBeMe]

But yes, the founders made the bill of rights so that we could amend the constitution centuries later. It’s brilliant and yet we aren’t doing it.

When we all know if I told Jefferson a musket would fire 60 rounds per second in 100 years he’d make a VERY big asterisk.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose "Marxist bastards" Moron. According to you that's 90% of the world.

[Juxtapose]

I don't really care about your perception of what is more important. The right to life is pretty important but you don't see that in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit murder.

The most important rights in my perception is free speech and the right to bear arms. Those two will best ward against a tyrannical state which should be the primary concern of the citizenry. Being a citizen of the United States entails constant vigilance against tyranny because the government is very susceptible to corruption and is deeply corrupt as it is.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded I never said anything about 90%, that's all you dude. And yeah, they are Marxist bastards. Almost all of Europe is with their woke nonsense.

The KKK literally cannot physically exist in Denmark legally. Some free speech they have, right? And in Germany you literally cannot deny the Holocaust without going to jail. There are also instances of people being kidnapped from their homes by the state for social media posts.

So yeah, you guys are filthy fucking Marxists.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose Actually…thanks to liberals during the civil war the Forteenth amendment says no one shall take away life liberty…etc. And thanks to Marxist libtards the only mention of slavery is outlawing it.

[Juxtapose]

Actually the 14th amendment was instituted after Lincoln died.

But you are right, that is a part of the Constitution that protects life. It took until the 14th amendment to be posted up there though.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose And the 15th granted slaves the right to vote. And let me see…no ID required.

[Juxtapose]

You forget it was the Democrats who were the slavers and the Republican party was founded as an anti-slave party. They are still the anti-racist party as they are against DEI, CRT & other racist nonsense that segregationists like Joe Biden push.

"The political parties switched dummy!"

No.

https://youtu.be/NkHkJzd41Jo?si=m7VKgkrYPwAWbPBx

[Juxtapose]

Yeah sorry but anyone who promotes voting without an ID is a dishonest piece of shit who wants to cheat. Nothing you say is going to change my mind on that.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose A) that’s a convict you’re promoting. B) party names are vastly different over 150 years. C) liberals weren’t the slave owners.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, of course you would go straight to trying to smear him when he was already pardoned by Trump. Why should I care that he was targeted by the deep state? If anything that's a badge of honor.

No, they are not.

You're right, they were Republicans. The Democrats have never been really liberal.

[Juxtapose]

Regardless of what you say to try and smear the man, what he says in the video is not incorrect.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose No it’s not incorrect. But for smart people we look at political ideologies at the time. Not something stupid like party names.

This really makes you look stupid. More than usual.

[Juxtapose]

Spoken like someone who did not watch the video and remains uneducated willingly.

[Juxtapose]

The Democrats have been consistently racist and their political ideology has held true to that.

[Juxtapose]

The video literally explains the southern strategy, why certain people like libertarians were against civil rights bills and so on. But you're going to remain ignorant of that and keep repeating the same lies and twisting the truth in the same way these other retards do.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose so liberals were the slave owners and confederate soldiers back then?

[Juxtapose]

No, those were the democrats. Democrats are not liberal and frankly they have only masqueraded as being liberal in recent times.

Liberals should look a lot like libertarians who are more socially permissive and lock up corporations more in regulation.

[Juxtapose]

But like the socialist nazis, the Democrats are as racist as ever.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose you’re very confused sir. Liberals versus conservatism is the guage that doesn’t change over time. Not party names are southern strategies.

And LBJ famously said signing the Civil Rights Act lost us the south.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, I know. Liberal and conservatism has meant the same thing since its inception. I am saying what I am saying in full awareness of that. The Democrats have rarely, if ever, been liberal.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose so liberals were the slaveholding confederates?

[Juxtapose]

No, those were the Democrats who held a strange political ideology that does not match with conservatism or liberalism. There is nothing conservative or liberal about holding slaves, it is an abomination.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Everyone's a socialist nazi marxist, except the people you like? Bullshit.

On the other hand, America First was fascist in 1940, and it's fascist now. The only difference is that European dictator invading his neighbours they're supporting now is Russian instead of German.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded no, misconstrued.

No, it's not fascist. Putting your country FIRST is NORMAL and HEALTHY.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose sorry if the broad brush is getting paint on you but you’re the one standing close to previous fascist slogans.
en.wikipedia.org/.../...chewed_up_the_children.jpg

[Juxtapose]

When I say America comes first, I am referring to that literally. I am not referring to some racist bullshit that you won't find these days unless you go to the deep South or some blue state where they hate White people.

[Juxtapose]

But I forgot, you guys are the ones who think the okay sign is a white supremacist symbol xD

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose I used the ok sign the other day. When it’s used for WP signals…yeah I’m pissed.

[Snakeyes7]

@OddBeMe It was never used as a WP signal. It only originated from 4chan just to see how gullible the left is and what do you know, the leftist media took the bait. Now people who blindly follow the media actually think it is a WP signal.

[OddBeMe]

@Snakeyes7 Can you list what sources you accept? WaPo, NYT, Forbes, Insider, they’re owned by right wing corporations. But journalists are mostly independent.

[Juxtapose]

Omfg Odd you really don't know your Internet meme history..

[Juxtapose]

www.adl.org/.../how-ok-symbol-became-popular-trolling-gesture

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Who's doing the trolling?

[OddBeMe]

Yes idiots it started as a 4 Chan joke, like n*****er, and now is an actual White Power sign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vbrb-Fik-M

[Snakeyes7]

Where are all these WP people? They just seem to oh-so-conveniently show up when the media hasn't fear mongered in a while. The chances that they aren't feds are also astoundingly low.

[Juxtapose]

Oh I didn't realize the "nig" word started out as a 4chan joke. Where is the shit posting from Benjamin Franklin?

[OddBeMe]

So you think the media made them seem white supremacist…not holding up WP hand signal that (joke or not) is used by racists?

[Juxtapose]

The media was retarded. It's not a racist symbol at all it's a troll.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose even though it’s used by racists, admittedly to be racist, joke or not…it’s still not racist? Lol

[Juxtapose]

It's a common hand sign that has nothing to do with racism except AS A JOKE.

I have never seen a white supremacist use it. If they do, they fell for a prank.

[Juxtapose]

Ayrian Brotherhood doesn't use it, Cincinnati White Boys don't use it, the KKK doesn't, etc.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose so it has something to do with racism as a joke? How does that work? Is it racist then?

[Juxtapose]

The hand sign being "racist" was to trick gullible sjws into thinking it is racist. It isn't racist it's a very, very common hand signal that will NEVER be a racist symbol to anyone but buffoons.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Why doesn't it surprise me that you apparently hang around with white supremacists? How else would you have knowingly never seen a white supremacist use it, or know "Ayrian Brotherhood doesn't use it, Cincinnati White Boys don't use it, the KKK doesn't"?

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose but doing it…like behind a person of color…is racist.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded I have been friends with sjws, murderers, convicts, dealers, veterans, schizophrenic people, rape victims, the rich, the poor and so on. I don't care what people believe or what they have done in the past as long as they do not harm me and they treat me well. You could have been the worst person in the last 20 years but if you treat me well? I don't care 🤷

[Juxtapose]

I actually have learned a lot by examining other people's perspective and my idol on this particular thing is Daryl Davis because he befriends KKK members while being black himself and he actually gets them to give up their robes and leave the organization. He doesn't shame them, he doesn't act like some sjw twat, he talks them like a human being.

[Juxtapose]

@OddBeMe psst.. they're doing it to troll you and elicit a reaction.

If I suddenly say tap dancing is racist and then I tap dance behind a black person, are you going to start saying that's racist?

[goaded]

@Juxtapose People joking about racism clearly don't think it's a big deal.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Do you ever even try to talk any of your white supremacist friends out of it?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded that's nonsense. I can joke about death, rape, child murder, torture, etc and still hate that. I don't believe in sacred cows.

Yes, subtlety and over time. But I won't try to force things on people.

[Juxtapose]

I know it's hard for Germans to understand, since you don't let people deny the Holocaust.

Just to be clear I DESPISE Holocaust denial and fight hard against it, but censorship isn't the answer. The Nuremberg Trials are the most well proven court cases in history.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded You clearly don't understand how humor works. Humor is intended to show the absurdities of the human condition.

When you make a racist joke it is in mockery of the racist view itself and those who hold it.

If I told you a joke saying that the number of police officers it would take to screw in a lightbulb would be irrelevant because they will all be too busy beating the room for being black, is that me saying that the civil rights movement is wrong? That police brutality is ok? That I enjoy the suffering of black people?

No I am mocking the police unions for their "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.

[Juxtapose]

Well said Snake.

[goaded]

@Snakeyes7 "When you make a racist joke it is in mockery of the racist view itself and those who hold it."
When some people do, it is, when others do, they're normalising racism. You should be able to tell the difference.

When Warren Mitchell played Alf Garnett (the original Archie Bunker character), he was taking the piss out of racists (and would happily tell them so, if they told him they agreed with Alf).

That said, the lightbulbs joke is funny. I'm not sure it's "mocking the police unions", though. Nor is it racist. You know why it's funny? It's punching UP, at the powerful, not DOWN. at the powerless.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded No it doesn't, if anything it keeps racism as it shows how stupid it is. Laughing at a well-timed racist joke is an acknowledgement of the absurdity of racism and the situations described in dark humor in general. Humor is a tool to help humanity move on from horrifying events.

You're right, jokes that are funny always punch up. If you find a joke funny, then you perceive the target of that joke to be powers that be you aren't supposed to criticize.

[goaded]

"No it doesn't"? Sorry, what?

Tell me a joke involving black people, fried chicken, and watermelon. Explain how it's funny.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded I forgot what joke we’re discussing. this about Trump or the ok hand sign?

[goaded]

The thing is that the racial majority in the US who have traditionally had it better than any other race (on average) have managed to convince themselves that they're the victims of the people demanding equality. That means they think they're punching up when they're really punching down. in my opinion.

[Snakeyes7]

@goaded It is a mockery of the stereotype itself and those who think it actually exists or plays a bigger role than it actually does. The joke applies the stereotype in absurd ways.

[Sevenpointfive]

i don't think so. violence is just that. if you want to categorize it, then you might as well go further than we already do. i could

[Juxtapose]

Sure, if we can get the media to be very clear on the race of criminal suspects from now on as well.

You're going to be surprised at how much crime blacks commit versus whites 😂

[gorydetails]

So you've come to the point where you defend trans murderers, eh?

[msc545]

No actually we've come to the point where we don't listen to morons like you.

[gorydetails]

@msc545 you unblocked me and tried to follow me just to post this dumb shit. idiot.

[msc545]

I actually was trying to see whether or not I had blocked you and in the process unblocked you. Of course I'm just going to block you again because I can't stand reading your crap asshole.

[gorydetails]

@msc545 lol, fuck off fag.

[msc545]

You spend a lot of time calling people fags. Do you need some dick to suck?

[gorydetails]

@msc545 I just call people who act like fags, fags. So quit being such a fag.

[goaded]

It's almost as if you guys have a playbook. How quickly the right will accuses others of doing something they're not to distract from someone pointing out what they're doing.

You have nearly two mass shootings a day in the US (you'd had 83 by the end of February this year), but the only time you mention someone's sexuality is when it suits you. You should be having a trans person committing a mass shooting every couple of months, if they were as dangerous as the average American. You don't.

[gorydetails]

@goaded You're correct. The mass shootings are most all being done by black people. Coincidentally, they another group that you shitlibs have convinced that they are perpetual victims who are under attack and being genocided. I've written plenty of times that people who vote democrat are the ones causing the gun problems in this country.

[goaded]

Funnily enough, 100% are committed by people with guns.

[gorydetails]

@goaded And? Oh wait, you claimed to be interested in protecting US "democracy". Well there's that pesky constitution that guarantees a person's right to be armed.

[goaded]

Even felons?

[gorydetails]

@goaded Good point. Does preventing them from owning guns by law stop them from having guns?

[goaded]

Most places, yes. Maybe not in a country that's swimming in them, but even there they can be prosecuted if they're caught with an illegal firearm, right?

[gorydetails]

@goaded Oh, so you have a number of firearms you think are acceptable to have.

[Juxtapose]

"Shall not be infringed" did not say anything about felons.

The founding fathers let civilians put cannons on their ships. Let's dispense with this disarmament bullshit and taking away people's freedoms.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose What’s the very first line?

[Juxtapose]

Like I already told you, the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that you do not need to be part of any organization to exercise your right to bear arms and they have explained their reasoning for that.

I will repeat, you do not need to be part of any organization to exercise your right to bear arms.

The founding fathers literally let civilians put cannons on their boats. Were those civilians part of the militia?

Yeah, didn't think so.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose scotus also ruled on abortion. But that for overturned.

[Juxtapose]

We all know the legal reasoning for having abortion put in the Constitution the way it was was bullshit. It should have been a bodily autonomy amendment.

[Juxtapose]

So that's why it was removed, justifiably so. If you want it in the constitution, do it the right way.

Meanwhile the second amendment has stayed strong and consistent with the founding fathers visions.

[Juxtapose]

I live in a state where I do not need any sort of license to conceal or open carry. I do not need to register firearms either. That is how it should be.

[OddBeMe]

You have a problem separating yourself from the issues and looking at things winding bias.

No matter what either of us believe, a scotus ruling can be overturned. As you saw.

[OddBeMe]

*without

[Juxtapose]

The whole abortion thing, like I said, was done on rather poor legal grounds. I am with people on abortion but with how they conducted it? It was stupid.

[Juxtapose]

Meanwhile the second amendment is pretty rock solid even though the wording could use some simplification.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose we thought roe was rock solid. Just saying…

[Juxtapose]

www.latimes.com/.../how-roe-vs-wade-went-wrong-broad-new-right-to-abortion-rested-on-a-shaky-legal-foundation

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose (slaps face)

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, the truth hurts doesn't it?

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose no…you’re just not understanding.

[Juxtapose]

If you say so.