IGX

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

You've chosen some good words there, but your original point was that "gun ownership has moved beyond the rational to the emotional". My point is that the emotional fear of prohibition and confiscation didn't materialize out of thin air. Formerly sensible people don't usually lose rationality for no reason.

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

My guess is that if prominent liberals embraced a very few specific restrictions and boldly stated that overall the right to bear arms was inviolable, they'd gain support from the other side.

He's such a tendentious and unwarrantedly dismissive fuck.

Almost never in good faith.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

There's a significant business model based around them not getting that feeling.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

You've chosen some good words there, but your original point was that "gun ownership has moved beyond the rational to the emotional". My point is that the emotional fear of prohibition and confiscation didn't materialize out of thin air. Formerly sensible people don't usually lose rationality for no reason.

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

My guess is that if prominent liberals embraced a very few specific restrictions and boldly stated that overall the right to bear arms was inviolable, they'd gain support from the other side.

Sensible people lose rationality for no reason all the time.

And it is very possible that the fear of prohibition and confiscation is promoted by organizations whose income depends on people being afraid of prohibition and confiscation. That seems to be exactly how politics works.

I don't know if it is like this in every country, or if it has always been like this, but at this point and time there seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from reasoned discourse from either side of the political spectrum. If a "liberal" and "conservative" were to get together and work on a rational, reasonable set of laws that do not infringe on the rights gun ownership while at the same time set up some safeguards that could prevent mass shootings, accidental gun deaths, etc. and whatever, neither party would embrace it because while it might benefit people, it does not benefit the party.

Each group is better off having hard line entrenched opinions that monetize the base.

But it feels it is like this for every issue, from immigration to tax reform to health care.

It seems to be worse now but rational discourse has never mobilized as many people as hysteria, whether it it's panic (9/11), outrage (Pearl Harbor), or a movement tapping into popular sentiment (the 26th Amendment).

newguy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:04 pm

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

You've chosen some good words there, but your original point was that "gun ownership has moved beyond the rational to the emotional". My point is that the emotional fear of prohibition and confiscation didn't materialize out of thin air. Formerly sensible people don't usually lose rationality for no reason.

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

My guess is that if prominent liberals embraced a very few specific restrictions and boldly stated that overall the right to bear arms was inviolable, they'd gain support from the other side.

Sensible people lose rationality for no reason all the time.

And it is very possible that the fear of prohibition and confiscation is promoted by organizations whose income depends on people being afraid of prohibition and confiscation. That seems to be exactly how politics works.

I don't know if it is like this in every country, or if it has always been like this, but at this point and time there seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from reasoned discourse from either side of the political spectrum. If a "liberal" and "conservative" were to get together and work on a rational, reasonable set of laws that do not infringe on the rights gun ownership while at the same time set up some safeguards that could prevent mass shootings, accidental gun deaths, etc. and whatever, neither party would embrace it because while it might benefit people, it does not benefit the party.

Each group is better off having hard line entrenched opinions that monetize the base.

But it feels it is like this for every issue, from immigration to tax reform to health care.

Maybe one benefit of the pandemic is that it's exposed just how weak the ties that bind really are. As you mentioned above, maybe it's always been this way to some degree. But it feels like the 60's/70's to me right now only worse.

Upper tier of NRA sycophants and Lapierre have absolutely used the fear of confiscation to keep money rolling in for themselves, but they were willingly aided by the Dems who decided to make confiscation a party platform.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:48 pm

newguy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:04 pm

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

You've chosen some good words there, but your original point was that "gun ownership has moved beyond the rational to the emotional". My point is that the emotional fear of prohibition and confiscation didn't materialize out of thin air. Formerly sensible people don't usually lose rationality for no reason.

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

My guess is that if prominent liberals embraced a very few specific restrictions and boldly stated that overall the right to bear arms was inviolable, they'd gain support from the other side.

Sensible people lose rationality for no reason all the time.

And it is very possible that the fear of prohibition and confiscation is promoted by organizations whose income depends on people being afraid of prohibition and confiscation. That seems to be exactly how politics works.

I don't know if it is like this in every country, or if it has always been like this, but at this point and time there seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from reasoned discourse from either side of the political spectrum. If a "liberal" and "conservative" were to get together and work on a rational, reasonable set of laws that do not infringe on the rights gun ownership while at the same time set up some safeguards that could prevent mass shootings, accidental gun deaths, etc. and whatever, neither party would embrace it because while it might benefit people, it does not benefit the party.

Each group is better off having hard line entrenched opinions that monetize the base.

But it feels it is like this for every issue, from immigration to tax reform to health care.

Maybe one benefit of the pandemic is that it's exposed just how weak the ties that bind really are. As you mentioned above, maybe it's always been this way to some degree. But it feels like the 60's/70's to me right now only worse.

Late 70s USSR.

newguy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:04 pm

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

You've chosen some good words there, but your original point was that "gun ownership has moved beyond the rational to the emotional". My point is that the emotional fear of prohibition and confiscation didn't materialize out of thin air. Formerly sensible people don't usually lose rationality for no reason.

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

My guess is that if prominent liberals embraced a very few specific restrictions and boldly stated that overall the right to bear arms was inviolable, they'd gain support from the other side.

Sensible people lose rationality for no reason all the time.

And it is very possible that the fear of prohibition and confiscation is promoted by organizations whose income depends on people being afraid of prohibition and confiscation. That seems to be exactly how politics works.

I don't know if it is like this in every country, or if it has always been like this, but at this point and time there seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from reasoned discourse from either side of the political spectrum. If a "liberal" and "conservative" were to get together and work on a rational, reasonable set of laws that do not infringe on the rights gun ownership while at the same time set up some safeguards that could prevent mass shootings, accidental gun deaths, etc. and whatever, neither party would embrace it because while it might benefit people, it does not benefit the party.

Each group is better off having hard line entrenched opinions that monetize the base.

But it feels it is like this for every issue, from immigration to tax reform to health care.

That's democracy. Politics is the allocation of societal resources. And ideology and associated wedge issues are means of hiding or distracting from that allocation.

Add in multiple ethnicities with none being dominant and you get 2020

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:33 pm

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:48 pm

newguy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:04 pm

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

You've chosen some good words there, but your original point was that "gun ownership has moved beyond the rational to the emotional". My point is that the emotional fear of prohibition and confiscation didn't materialize out of thin air. Formerly sensible people don't usually lose rationality for no reason.

Until they "feel" that their rights will substantially be protected in the long term, they're going to continue being very resistant.

My guess is that if prominent liberals embraced a very few specific restrictions and boldly stated that overall the right to bear arms was inviolable, they'd gain support from the other side.

Sensible people lose rationality for no reason all the time.

And it is very possible that the fear of prohibition and confiscation is promoted by organizations whose income depends on people being afraid of prohibition and confiscation. That seems to be exactly how politics works.

I don't know if it is like this in every country, or if it has always been like this, but at this point and time there seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from reasoned discourse from either side of the political spectrum. If a "liberal" and "conservative" were to get together and work on a rational, reasonable set of laws that do not infringe on the rights gun ownership while at the same time set up some safeguards that could prevent mass shootings, accidental gun deaths, etc. and whatever, neither party would embrace it because while it might benefit people, it does not benefit the party.

Each group is better off having hard line entrenched opinions that monetize the base.

But it feels it is like this for every issue, from immigration to tax reform to health care.

Maybe one benefit of the pandemic is that it's exposed just how weak the ties that bind really are. As you mentioned above, maybe it's always been this way to some degree. But it feels like the 60's/70's to me right now only worse.

Late 70s USSR.

That's probably the best comparison. Total disillusionment with the system.

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They "know" the long game is to restrict their rights to the point of oblivion.

There's no group who center their lives around confiscating guns. That derive their identity from it. That define themselves with it. Live the "Gun Grabber" lifestyle. No magazines, or even a whole rack of magazines, devoted to the topic. No swag to wear. It only really bubbles up when we have a mass shooting, then sags back down.

Ain't so, Nafod. Everytown promotes gun confiscation. They call it "Extreme Protection Risk Orders". AKA "red flag".

They have special clothing. Red shirts. "Moms Demand Action". Nasty people, middle age ball busters.

"Red Flag", aka "Extreme Protection Risk Orders is gun confiscation that tries to pretend to public safety.

Due Process? Don't need it. Just a denunciation in some Star Chamber. Someone's say so. Police come. Your "due process" is proving that you're not a threat. Maybe you'll get your guns back. Maybe you'll sell them to pay off the lawyer.

Don't need to sell Magazines for that campaign - Corporate owned Media puts it on TV for our convenience. Advertising in kind.

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

People were buying Thompson submachineguns over the counter before 1934. Mobsters were. They were expensive. The people most likely to use them, bootleggers, could afford them. The Colt Monitor was another one, a BAR with a compensator. High capacity magazine. Bootleggers got 'em.

Handguns were cheap. Plentiful. Sears sold them through the mail before 1917. The Remington 8 was a semi-automatic hunting rifle that is over 100 years old.

No restrictions on short barreled shotguns. Whippit guns, a form of sawed off semi-auto shotgun, over the counter. Cash and carry. Much more lethal than a submachine gun. Those were taxed in 1934.

In those days? No GCA of 1968. No Brady Checks. No 302. No Red Flag.


Nafod won't tell you that the biggest mass murder by one person was done using a can of gasoline. You can buy that stuff at any gas station. Biggest mass killing at school? Bath Michigan. A tax protester used dynamite. Over fifty people.


An AR15 will set you back a good chunk of change. They're rarely used in mass shootings. They are easy to hate and perhaps easy to ban. Dangerous?

Most mass shootings involve handguns. Only three people and up.

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:25 pm Meanwhile, never in the history of mankind has so much firepower been so readily available to so many so cheaply. We repeatedly prove to ourselves that you can walk out of a Dunham's with the ability to go kill 20-30 people lickety-split. That's pretty much the opposite of "point of oblivion".

The BATF&E estimates that there are between 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 AR platform rifles in private hands. How many mass shootings of this sort do we see in the US, Nafod? How thirty something dead mass shootings?

If every year you have two such shootings with two rifles, and the other 19,999,998 firearms are not being used, that implies that 99.999999 percent of these firearms are not being used for such purposes.

Comes a point where the lurid imagery doesn't match the reality.

They're easy to hate. Bloomberg thinks that they'll be "easy to ban". I saw that remark come out of his mouth.

Waste of law enforcement resources. Symbolism over substance.

Common handguns, Nafod. Those are most often used in murders and in mass shootings.

What is gun crime in the US without young brothers counted?

Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:59 pm What is gun crime in the US without young brothers counted?

Don't know. I wonder how much "gun crime" is tied up in the illicit drug trade? Settling debts, sales turf? Prohibition changed violence patterns, repealing them again.

Maybe instead of banning guns we need to unban some drugs?

Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:59 pm What is gun crime in the US without young brothers counted?

You have asked the question that cannot be asked. It certainly can't be discussed publicly without serious repercussions.

Mandatory race based training on the undeniable evils of whiteness is perfectly acceptable. Discussing who's pulling deadly triggers is not because.........racism. I feel like we've jumped through the looking glass.

Gene wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:34 pma can of gasoline.

It just ain't the same. Gas Can Monthly was a known flop.



Do you think the gun industry is just selling guns?

What are they really selling?

nafod wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:17 pm

Gene wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:34 pma can of gasoline.

It just ain't the same. Gas Can Monthly was a known flop.



Do you think the gun industry is just selling guns?

What are they really selling?

Dystopian survival? SF Wannabeism? Self defense from some new overlord? Tactical gear head fantasies?
On the most elemental level they're probably selling a sense of control over a feared future.

Nafod is ignoring that any product with built in hobbies lends itself to creating a lifestyle built around it. And there are hobbies both solo and competitive for every type of firearm. How would you build a lifestyle around not owning something? The only activity you have is lobbying for bans.

The fetishized SF cosplay is just plain weird.

nafod wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:08 pm The fetishized SF cosplay is just plain weird.

I'm not into the Tactical Timmy stuff that way, but it's just one flavor. Most you aren't going to see because it's not on the grocery store magazine rack. Hunting (so many types of animals and they often need totally different firearms to be taken) target shooting (pistol, 22, 100yd, long range, silhouette, three-gun, black powder, various action shooting leagues including cowboy guns), reloading, gunsmithing, multiple shotgun sports. Plain old collecting has a lot of subgenres.

As far as the tactical stuff goes, its spread is an example of how the broader consumer market looks to the police community for cues on usefulness and reliability. Like the widespread adoption of semiauto pistols as the standard in self defense, which visibly accelerated after police departments across the US moved away from revolvers. You will often see people claim that the police need "x" because they were outgunned but the reaction actually works the other direction. Gangs only got glocks after the police started using them.

nafod wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:08 pm The fetishized SF cosplay is just plain weird.

When I looked at the cover of the mag you posted I thought Cosmo for gun guys. Create an ideal that fills an emotional void, make it look cool, and sell to it. Tried and true formula. And guys love gear, and guns, like golf, boats, and fishing, offers gear galore.

Now you've got me thinking about cosplay and orthodontists cruising around Sturgess on their HD's that arrived via trailer at their 5,000 s.f. Air BNB.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:06 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:08 pm The fetishized SF cosplay is just plain weird.

When I looked at the cover of the mag you posted I thought Cosmo for gun guys. Create an ideal that fills an emotional void, make it look cool, and sell to it. Tried and true formula. And guys love gear, and guns, like golf, boats, and fishing, offers gear galore.

Now you've got me thinking about cosplay and orthodontists cruising around Sturgess on their HD's that arrived via trailer at their 5,000 s.f. Air BNB.

I looked at it and wondered how much mechanix paid the mag.

The new gun paraphilia is SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY.

Listen you perverts just keep the front pointing away from anyone and no one gets shot.

I'm here to shoot not prove how much sublimated sexual pleasure I get from forcing myself to do whacky shit to BE SAFE because these simple machines have magical dark powers of death and destruction.

They aren't wizard wands or magical D an D relics with occult powers.