The News Thread

[CiG]

Breitbart are paranoid for pointing to more and more restrictions on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, meanwhile 90% of the left-wing media has been trying to convince America that fascism is on the rise and basically already in the whitehouse. Ironic.

 

[The Ozzman]

Breitbart are paranoid for pointing to more and more restrictions on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, meanwhile 90% of the left-wing media has been trying to convince America that fascism is on the rise and basically already in the whitehouse. Ironic.

Gun restrictions have been happening ever since the National Firearms Act was passed in the 30s but liberals don't ever talk about that. It only came about because of Prohibition and at its core is unconstitutional. They think that segmentation of restrictions is something 'new' (within the last generation I mean) and 'not dangerous' because we are still able to buy guns but if they actually understood the amount of restrictions already in place (25,000+ gun laws on the books), they would maybe reconsider their stance. Our gun rights are slowly being picked apart piece by piece in the name of 'safety'.

As an example of how the anti-gunners don't fully understand the actual restrictions on the books, someone I work with who is for legislation was unaware that you can't buy full auto firearms if they were manufactured after 1986 and if you get one pre 1986 you have to jump through all kinds of red tape. Not to mention that while I already got a thorough background check to get my CCW, I need another one to get a suppressor and another to make a short barreled rifle. One background check is too much already.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cardinal-pell-found-guilty-on-all-counts-of-sex-abuse
News outlets in Australia have been suppressed from reporting the news that our Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty on all counts of sexual abuse of children in the 90’s. Major papers are posting front-page stories about how something significant has happened to someone very high profile but they’re not allowed to talk about it.

How does that work? Clearly it's all over the international news, so why would they suppress that, and is it because of some kind of libel law or can Australia just arbitrarily control the presses?

EDIT: Per WaPo

But because of a court-issued gag order intended to preserve impartiality, the news media has been forbidden from publishing news in Australia on the details of the Melbourne trial, and now on the unanimous decision of the jury.

...

That the Australian justice system takes enforcement seriously is clear. Last spring, an Australian state court employee was fired merely for looking up details of charges facing Cardinal Pell in a restricted computer system, according to the Catholic publication Crux.

wtf m8

 

[CiG]

Cardinal George Pell is a lump.

 

[Satanstoenail]

wtf m8

It’s fair enough that they want an impartial jury for the next trial, but pretty unachievable in this day & age. Now news outlets are reporting that he’s been stood down by the pope, but nothing about the trial. It’s ridiculous.

Cardinal George Pell is a lump.

He’s Cardinal no more, now he’s just creepy old George Diddler. PedoPell.

 

[CiG]

He's a Cardinal Sin.

 

[Slammed]

It’s fair enough that they want an impartial jury for the next trial, but pretty unachievable in this day & age.

That's pretty much the problem with the Lawyer X stuff too. The media have spent the last 20 years glorifying the Gangland wars and Underbelly of Melbourne and now when this latest shit blows up they are going to struggle to find an impartial jury and judge to hear the case. With Lawyer X they do have the option of looking interstate with a little more success than the Pell case but it's still not going to be easy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Gun restrictions have been happening ever since the National Firearms Act was passed in the 30s but liberals don't ever talk about that. It only came about because of Prohibition and at its core is unconstitutional. They think that segmentation of restrictions is something 'new' (within the last generation I mean) and 'not dangerous' because we are still able to buy guns but if they actually understood the amount of restrictions already in place (25,000+ gun laws on the books), they would maybe reconsider their stance. Our gun rights are slowly being picked apart piece by piece in the name of 'safety'.

As an example of how the anti-gunners don't fully understand the actual restrictions on the books, someone I work with who is for legislation was unaware that you can't buy full auto firearms if they were manufactured after 1986 and if you get one pre 1986 you have to jump through all kinds of red tape. Not to mention that while I already got a thorough background check to get my CCW, I need another one to get a suppressor and another to make a short barreled rifle. One background check is too much already.

I’m sorry, it’s bullshit to own a fully automatic weapon. You shouldn’t even be able to buy one manufactured before 1986. Just another example of how lenient gun regulations are.

 

[The Ozzman]

I’m sorry, it’s bullshit to own a fully automatic weapon.

You aren't sorry, but why do you think this? Is it because it's a more destructive device? There are people who buy them as collectors. Should they not be allowed to enjoy the hobby because you get triggered by automatic weapons fire? What makes full auto fire worse than semi auto fire? You can easily make a semi automatic weapon into a full automatic with a shoelace.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Quick question .... what in the world do you need a fully automatic weapon for?

 

[Einherjar86]

You aren't sorry, but why do you think this? Is it because it's a more destructive device? There are people who buy them as collectors. Should they not be allowed to enjoy the hobby because you get triggered by automatic weapons fire? What makes full auto fire worse than semi auto fire? You can easily make a semi automatic weapon into a full automatic with a shoelace.

Lol, “triggered.”

 

[The Ozzman]

Quick question .... what in the world do you need a fully automatic weapon for?

What in the world do you need a gun for? What in the world do you need to smoke cigarettes for? What do you need to edit Wikipedia articles with pictures of HBB and poorly drawn penises for? What in the world do you need a car with a V8 for? This 4 cylinder engine works just as well, right?

Why should it matter why I need to own a particular item? I have a desire to own it and that is enough. Why do I need to own 1200+ CDs when I could just save space and have them in digital format instead?

 

[The Ozzman]

Lol, “triggered.”

Circumventing my question, I see

 

[CiG]

I don't really have a passionate view one way or the other when it comes to full auto weaponry access but I like how people oppose full auto weapon ownership and then turn around and say "anybody who thinks they can use their firearms to resist the state is being ridiculous" and never see the irony. The more they limit the range of legally purchasable firearms, the more valid their critique of people who say that, at least in part, the 2nd amendment exists to oppose state tyranny becomes.

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't really have a passionate view one way or the other when it comes to full auto weaponry access but I like how people oppose full auto weapon ownership and then turn around and say "anybody who thinks they can use their firearms to resist the state is being ridiculous" and never see the irony. The more they limit the range of legally purchasable firearms, the more valid their critique of people who say that, at least in part, the 2nd amendment exists to oppose state tyranny becomes.

It's mainly because of a few things I think:

1) General indoctrination that 'guns are bad' from a young age
2) People ignorant (willfully or otherwise) about firearms and how to use them (semi-related to #1)
3) A lack of desire to achieve self-preservation by learning to protect yourself using potentially deadly means. One of these means is firearms
4) A combination of the above

There are people out there who think they should not take the measures to protect themselves because 'people shouldn't act violent'.

In an ideal world, they wouldn't. Current society does not work that way and if you choose to not take steps to protect yourself or your family (with guns or without since other avenues exist for self defense), then you have zero respect for yourself even though you are well within your rights to not do so

 

[Dak]

Eins just reactive to his relatives vs his current milieu. It's pretty predictable. Even without the background, following one's instruction in higher education is pretty standard. Without strong values or cognitive based resistance, why would you argue with authority? Especially when said authority holds career keys? The "uneducated" resist because there are no stakes involved, or opposing stakes.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

What in the world do you need a gun for? What in the world do you need to smoke cigarettes for? What do you need to edit Wikipedia articles with pictures of HBB and poorly drawn penises for? What in the world do you need a car with a V8 for? This 4 cylinder engine works just as well, right? Why should it matter why I need to own a particular item? I have a desire to own it and that is enough. Why do I need to own 1200+ CDs when I could just save space and have them in digital format instead?

yeah, you're definitely one of the dumbest human beings i have ever come across.

WHAT IS A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON USED FOR?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I don't really have a passionate view one way or the other when it comes to full auto weaponry

yeah most people dont either. But i get genuinely curious when lames like ozz who play with guns in their parents basements talk about why they're so mad that people are trying to stop the from owning automatics. What in the world would does someone like him need an automatic weapon for? GUNS ARE MAH HOBBY people are truly a fucking joke tbh

 

[The Ozzman]

How can I live in a parent's basement when I own my own house? You are seriously on drugs or something because your head ain't right.

WHAT IS A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON USED FOR?

1) Collecting
2) Use at a range or competition (see: the bi-annual machine gun shoot in Kentucky)

How many crimes have been committed with fully automatic weapons recently? Now compare that with semi automatics and revolvers. Why is one heavily regulated over the other in this instance?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"collecting"? Do you not understand my question or are you truly a neanderthal?

Let me be more clear since you seem to be so soft in the head. What do YOU need an automatic weapon for?