If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Trotskyists are notorious interventionists though.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Obsession with left-axis identity politics = you're probably at least a little bit leftist

 

[The Ozzman]

Marxism is cancer

 

[CiG]

Marksism is cooler.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Dak did you already post this?

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Trotskyists are notorious interventionists though.

Well, yeah. It's literally what makes Trotskyists Trotskyist. The drone warfare campaign is hardly a comparable form of intervention, however. Quite the opposite: the entire situation taken into account, it's exactly the type of intervention Marxists, Trotskyists or otherwise, would criticize--well, aside from the nihilists who see it as not only symptomatic of but also abetting to America's downfall.

Marxism is cancer

Define Marxism.

 

[The Ozzman]

Define Marxism

Define common sense gun laws/control first

 

[CiG]

Well, yeah. It's literally what makes Trotskyists Trotskyist. The drone warfare campaign is hardly a comparable form of intervention, however. Quite the opposite: the entire situation taken into account, it's exactly the type of intervention Marxists, Trotskyists or otherwise, would criticize--well, aside from the nihilists who see it as not only symptomatic of but also abetting to America's downfall.

Self-described Trotskyist Christopher Hitchens would have disagreed but whatever, if you want to live in a world where you think only right-wingers support shit like that, so be it.

 

[The Ozzman]

if you want to live in a world where you think only right-wingers support shit like that, so be it.

Just look at all the Obama supporters who kept silent when he sanctioned drone strikes to know that there are leftists who implicitly support it.

 

[CiG]

Many people on all sides implicitly support things they usually openly oppose, but to pretend as if there isn't some kind of meeting in the middle of neocons and trots when it comes to interventionism is fucking ridiculous.

Are you saying you can't be left-wing and support foreign interventionism?

Dude, c'mon. You've gotta be at least a little bit Marxist if you want to be in the "leftist academia" club. The left isn't the Democratic party.

And now BO is shifting the goalposts because drones are more right-wing, as if that's the standard for whether you're neocon-esque.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Define common sense gun laws/control first

Kill whitey

I've done this for you a couple of times already. My views on permit and buying processes, handguns, "scary-looking" semi-automatic rifles, and ownership rights haven't changed.

Self-described Trotskyist Christopher Hitchens would have disagreed but whatever, if you want to live in a world where you think only right-wingers support shit like that, so be it.

Self-descriptions don't always pass litmus tests.

Many people on all sides implicitly support things they usually openly oppose, but to pretend as if there isn't some kind of meeting in the middle of neocons and trots when it comes to interventionism is fucking ridiculous.



And now BO is shifting the goalposts because drones are more right-wing, as if that's the standard for whether you're neocon-esque.

I didn't say either of those things.

 

[CiG]

Sure thing.

 

[Dak]

Dak did you already post this?

No, I've seen it up in places but haven't had a chance to watch it yet. It's not like the premise is anything new. Sokal did this two decades ago.

 

[The Ozzman]

I've done this for you a couple of times already.

Ever since I asked you to reiterate them the first time several months ago, you have produced absolutely nothing that I've seen respective to your views on guns unless it has been in the course of other conversations with people on here which I haven't been following or because I was not directly quoted and I overlooked these posts. If you could be so kind and link me to these views, I am more than happy to read them.

The only thing I remember you posting about it several years ago is that if any blanket ban should occur for guns, it should be for handguns and not long guns. Other than that, I honestly don't recall your views on gun ownership or anything like that. I didn't really get super into guns until 2016 so if you posted them before that time, I never cared tbh. I've been pro-2A ever since I understood the concept of gun ownership and libertarianism but I never was 'super' into it until I actually owned a firearm.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Ever since I asked you to reiterate them the first time several months ago, you have produced absolutely nothing that I've seen respective to your views on guns unless it has been in the course of other conversations with people on here which I haven't been following or because I was not directly quoted and I overlooked these posts. If you could be so kind and link me to these views, I am more than happy to read them.

To the contrary:

The assault weapons ban of 1994 worked. Mass shootings immediately plummeted after implementation, and naturally they immediately resurged as the law expired in 2004. That's one thing, and the fact that a shotgun and revolver were in this case used is not a counter-argument to this like gun nuts always like to pretend. On gun violence more generally, easy: restrict access, require comprehensive gun safety training programs, and implement a steep sales tax on gun purchases. Making it harder to get guns doesn't stop all gun violence, but it does radically reduce it.

'Assault weapons'

What defines an assault weapon exactly these days? This ban indicates certain semi-automatic rifles but any weapon can be considered an assault weapon based on the textbook definition of 'assault'.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

View attachment 15032

If we are talking about rifles like an AK-47, SCAR or anything that someone can build from scratch, good luck getting those banned.

If you are talking about automatic weapons, those are already banned unless the gun was manufactured before 1986 (can't remember the exact date but it's part of Firearm Owner's Protection Act)



How?



What would this entail? This is already required if you choose to obtain a concealed carry license. It isn't necessarily 'comprehensive' as that's an ambiguous term, but it's there and required by each state in which you can get a license.

I mean, there are only so many ways you can say 'Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are ready to fire' or 'Do not store a loaded gun in an unlocked container' or 'Do not clean your gun when it is loaded'. It's up to the user of the firearm to be responsible about it. If they have a negligent discharge, that is not on the state who granted the license, the instructor who taught the class or the manufacturer. It is the responsibility of the person who caused the ND. If we require people to take an intelligence test to own a firearm as part of the comprehensive safety plan, I propose we also do it before people decide to conceive a child.

When anyone gets their driver's license, they do safety courses that involve the ramification of not wearing your seatbelt. People will still get behind the wheel and drive their vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. Yes, we fine people for that but it doesn't prevent people from doing it. We fine people for negligent discharges, but it doesn't prevent it from happening and neither do safety classes. Less than 1000 negligent discharges happen per year. How many gun owners are there in the US? In the tens of millions I imagine. I should probably know this.



This is already happening in a way. Not a sales tax, but a proposed increase in the tax on the manufacture of firearms and ammunition is proposed in Congress. The increase in tax on ammo would essentially legislate away the right to carry a firearm because it would be too cost prohibitive to even own one or practice with one. Would you agree with this legislation or would you agree that it hurts people who want to own firearms for any reason:

First link that popped up on Google:

https://www.atr.org/gun-tax-bill-doubles-federal-gun-tax-quintuples-ammo-tax

Actual text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

Section in question:




I believe the current tax on manufacture of firearms is 10% so that increase isn't too substantial (edit: from the ATF website: .

However, the tax on ammunition will pretty much kill the firearms industry. A box of 50 round 9mm target ammunition (ie: range ammo) averages 12-14 dollars depending on the company selling it, the grain of the ammunition and other things. I can find boxes on sale for under 10 dollars recently. This would essentially almost double the price of a box to 20 dollars as it'll be passed to the consumer to offset that price. It doubles the amount of money I have to spend to become proficient with a firearm and be able to practice safely handling it with ammunition in the firearm. I am unaware what the actual cost is to manufacture a single round of 9mm ball ammo, but increase it by 39% to offset the tax.

This doesn't take into account the fact that personal protection ammunition is already more expensive than the price of regular 'ball' ammo (ie: what you use at the range). Personal protection ammo is also known as hollow point ammunition for those who are not aware. If the price increases, people will be more likely to use ball ammo (which has a tendency to go through a person and into walls or other potential innocents) for protection rather than a bullet that will expand on impact and not go through the person and limit casualties. A box of 9mm hollow point ammuniton varies, but I can find 50 round boxes of ammunition online for 25 dollars which is a really good price. If you go to a big box store, you can only find the ammo in 25 round quantities and it's roughly 18-24 dollars for that at a big box store.

The first headline isn't entirely accurate since there's already a tax on it so obviously fake news.

Then you got all pissed off because I didn't engage you on the topic, which, as I explained a couple of weeks thereafter is because I, in fact, have zero interest in engaging in the gun debate 1) because I've spent far more hours of my life than I would have preferred engaging in this with my brother, who today I enjoy jokingly referring to as a recovering gun nut 2) it doesn't matter anyways because nothing will ever change.

I didn't really get super into guns until 2016 so if you posted them before that time, I never cared tbh. I've been pro-2A ever since I understood the concept of gun ownership and libertarianism but I never was 'super' into it until I actually owned a firearm.

Yes, my brother underwent essentially the same transformation after he sold his Gibson to buy his first gun, a pump-action Mossberg 500.

 

[The Ozzman]

Then you got all pissed off because I didn't engage you on the topic, which, as I explained a couple of weeks thereafter is because I, in fact, have zero interest in engaging in the gun debate 1) because I've spent far more hours of my life than I would have preferred engaging in this with my brother, who today I enjoy jokingly referring to as a recovering gun nut 2) it doesn't matter anyways because nothing will ever change.

Okay, I concede that post. However, I'm genuinely interest in your opinions on this:

On gun violence more generally, easy: restrict access, require comprehensive gun safety training programs, and implement a steep sales tax on gun purchases. Making it harder to get guns doesn't stop all gun violence, but it does radically reduce it.

only because I have yet for someone to give me a rational solution to this but it seems like you could come close to this. I don't know. I'm all for unrestricted access with a few exceptions but I try to keep an open mind when it comes to this only because no one ever provides anything other than 'muh think of the children' for a response.

edit: So I'll go ahead and say that I already gave you the definition of Marxism which is: Cancer

 

[Dak]

The problem with blanket gun bans is there's basically nothing but emotional appeals to justify them. I've looked and looked at data and arguments and there's just nothing there to support blanket bans. There are targeted policy options to reduce crime involving firearms where that happens to be a regular problem, but these don't make firearmphobics "feel" better, because they don't truly care about having smart, effectual policy.

 

[The Ozzman]

The problem with blanket gun bans is there's basically nothing but emotional appeals to justify them. I've looked and looked at data and arguments and there's just nothing there to support blanket bans. There are targeted policy options to reduce crime involving firearms where that happens to be a regular problem, but these don't make firearmphobics "feel" better, because they don't truly care about having smart, effectual policy.

Agreed that the arguments I've heard are only appeals to emotion and nothing more.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Okay, I concede that post. However, I'm genuinely interest in your opinions on this:



only because I have yet for someone to give me a rational solution to this but it seems like you could come close to this. I don't know. I'm all for unrestricted access with a few exceptions but I try to keep an open mind when it comes to this only because no one ever provides anything other than 'muh think of the children' for a response.

edit: So I'll go ahead and say that I already gave you the definition of Marxism which is: Cancer

I'm about to top off my Currywurst high with a cigarette and hit the sack, but I might type something up tomorrow after work and proofreading a paper for a friend.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm about to top off my Currywurst high with a cigarette and hit the sack, but I might type something up tomorrow after work and proofreading a paper for a friend.

Not that I care about the circumstances behind your delay, but thanks