*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

Do not accuse Johnny Saynothing of what Johnny Saynothing didn't say. Got it.

I never said anything about guns being successful at stopping tyranny. I said people who are the targets of tyranny have every right to every means to protect and defend themselves from said tyranny. Whether or not they can be successful in ending said tyranny is not the discussion, and has no impact on the statement. I'm not suggestion violence solves anything. I'm saying people whom are the target of violence cannot be told that it's wrong or illegal for them to respond with violence.

That's what all mass shooters are doing. You should read one of their manifestos sometime.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do not accuse Johnny Saynothing of what Johnny Saynothing didn't say. Got it.

My memory isn't all that great and if you find a quote where I said what you think I said, then cool. Slap it down and maybe I did say something really stupid. It happens.

Otherwise, come down off that high horse. I didn't say the stupid thing you said is a stupid thing I said. That's not on me.

That's what all mass shooters are doing. You should read one of their manifestos sometime.

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Is it that since some criminally insane people are literate, that all literate people should be treated as though they are criminally insane?

[oskar]

My memory isn't all that great and if you find a quote where I said what you think I said, then cool. Slap it down and maybe I did say something really stupid. It happens.

Otherwise, come down off that high horse. I didn't say the stupid thing you said is a stupid thing I said. That's not on me.


I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Is it that since some criminally insane people are literate, that all literate people should be treated as though they are criminally insane?

No, the point is that they think they're fighting tyranny... and are doing so unsuccessfully. Which was literally your bar for why all guns should be legal.

You repeated the thing I keep mocking you for point for point:

I never said anything about guns being successful at stopping tyranny. I said people who are the targets of tyranny have every right to every means to protect and defend themselves from said tyranny. Whether or not they can be successful in ending said tyranny is not the discussion, and has no impact on the statement. I'm not suggestion violence solves anything. I'm saying people whom are the target of violence cannot be told that it's wrong or illegal for them to respond with violence.

I can promise you I didn't try to deliberately misrepresent that. I wouldn't know how to misrepresent that to make less sense.

My position is super simple: The El Paso shooter was a 21 year old with a history of mental health problems who was able to purchase an AK47 legally. I am not against people owning AK47's. I understand that it is one of the least likely weapons to kill somebody. But I do think to own one, you should pass background checks that include your mental health history, and it should require training. You are ok with people having to pass a test to operate any vehicle or heavy machinery, or almost anything that can cause harm, but a fully automatic weapon which was designed to kill as many people as possible in a short a time as possible: Nothing but a waiting period... why? So he can potentially unsuccessfully fight what he perceives as tyranny? That's what he did!

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, the point is that they think they're fighting tyranny... and are doing so unsuccessfully. Which was literally your bar for why all guns should be legal.

You repeated the thing I keep mocking you for point for point:

We're not talking about the same thing, though.

You're saying that guns can't stop tyranny.
I agree with you that guns can't stop tyranny.
The notion that violence on either side will solve or help anything is wrong. We both agree on that.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think that defeating tyranny is relevant. I don't.
Tyranny is a human trait. Humans do it, and often to other humans.
Removing guns doesn't stop oppression, but it does make it easier to oppress people.
The advantage goes strongly in favor of the oppressors, the people that will do illegal things, own illegal weapons, and use them against other people.

I can promise you I didn't try to deliberately misrepresent that. I wouldn't know how to misrepresent that to make less sense.

Excellent!

If you don't understand something I've said, then just ask for clarity. Don't assume I said something you believe is unaccountably stupid.

My position is super simple: The El Paso shooter was a 21 year old with a history of mental health problems who was able to purchase an AK47 legally. I am not against people owning AK47's. I understand that it is one of the least likely weapons to kill somebody. But I do think to own one, you should pass background checks that include your mental health history, and it should require training.

I fully agree with this.

You are ok with people having to pass a test to operate any vehicle or heavy machinery, or almost anything that can cause harm, but a fully automatic weapon which was designed to kill as many people as possible in a short a time as possible: Nothing but a waiting period... why?

I don't know where you got this notion.

I've said many times that the only thing I'm against is outright banning of weapons.
I'm in favor of background checks, monetary fees associated with licensing, regulations and regular inspections by regulatory bodies.
Whatever, really.

I'm only against the notion that some group of people decides that it's OK for them to own and use weapons, but other people are not. If there's a ban, it goes for everyone, police and military included. Those people in those armed services are not special people. There are just as many criminally insane people who are cops or soldiers as not.

So he can potentially unsuccessfully fight what he perceives as tyranny? That's what he did!

Yes. A criminally insane person acted in a way that is at odds with the reality the rest of us perceive.
That's psychology for you.

Now that we know he's criminally insane, we can strip him of rights and put him in jail.
Until he was a criminal, there was no reason to treat him like one. Now that he is, there is reason to.

The thing about the presumption of innocence is that it means the bad guys get to cause at least one tragedy before we're allowed to lock them up and take away their rights.

[boost]

My position is super simple: The El Paso shooter was a 21 year old with a history of mental health problems who was able to purchase an AK47 legally. I am not against people owning AK47's. I understand that it is one of the least likely weapons to kill somebody. But I do think to own one, you should pass background checks that include your mental health history, and it should require training.

I fully agree with this.

I'm a bit confused MMM, are you saying that background checks weren't part of the discussion and that you did not endorse them, or that for some arbitrary reason your stance is off limits because I didn't mention it until I did?