Guns are still America’s religion

Remember all the gun-lovers blaming insufficiently secure doors for the tragedy in Uvalde? The school actually had special doors installed to protect against mass murdering terrorists. But the doors actually kept police out once the shooter started brutally murdering little kids.

(paywall removed)

So, Uvalde basically did everything on the list of the NRA to protect against this. A school police department, special doors, 40% of the town budget on police, a SWAT team for a town of only 13K people, etc. But surprise, surprise…. it still didn’t do anything because a teenager was able to buy weapons of war on credit. So, once again:

IT’S
THE
FUCKING
GUNS

Just cut all this other bullshit out. We shouldn’t have to turn every school in the entire country into a fortified war zone because of the fucking NRA. Vote out every single goddamn member of Congress who opposes gun control. Even far-right Justice Scalia whose 2008 decision was bat-shit crazy and a break with over 200 years of precedent said that guns can be highly regulated.

We are a complete failure as a country if we cannot value children above guns.
 
Was watching Bill Maher last night and he finished his show talking about how Hollywood as embraced "wokeness" about as hard as you can in every aspect except one: gun violence.

While all these actors complain about gun violence, they still cash the checks from movies made with......... gun violence.

Specifically Maher said:

but a hero in a movie "getting over a grudge by mowing down a multitude of human beings" is still allowed.
Click to expand...

which he followed up with:

"Because no impressionable young man would ever imitate that,"
Click to expand...

I know many of you hate Maher now because he is not a progressive, but does he have a point in your minds?

Should Hollywood simply stop making these movies?
 
Herdfan said:
I know many of you hate Maher now because he is not a progressive
Click to expand...

"Hate". You really need to cut back on that. Hate is what the White-wing does, and then projects any amount of criticism or reduced affection as "hate". Just knock that shit off. I used to find, for example, Dennis Miller amusing before he morphed into an unrecognizable Hannitoid, but I do not feel any "hate" for him – I rarely think of him at all, and when I am forced to, it is mostly just sadness and pity.

As far as media violence contributing to real world violence, it probably does to some extent, but nowhere near as much as mouthpieces are suggesting. If you were to try to calculate the causal factors of the last few deadly ammofests, violence in media would be one of the thinnest slices. We are a peace-preaching society of violence, and trying to reduce the actual violence by getting rid of the portrayed violence might help a little, but probably only a tiny bit as long as the big slices remain untouched.
 
Last edited:
Yoused said:
As far as media violence contributing to real world violence, it probably does to some extent, but nowhere near as much as mouthpieces are suggesting.
Click to expand...

Whether it does or doesn't, I don't want to hear some actor railing against gun violence and then go make millions off a movie in which gun violence is a large part. That is hypocritical.
 
Yoused said:
"Hate". Yon really need to cut back on that. Hate is what the White-wing does, and then projects any amount of criticism or reduced affection as "hate". Just knock that shit off. I used to find, for example, Dennis Miller amusing before he morphed into an unrecognizable Hannitoid, but I do not feel any "hate" for him – I rarely think of him at all, and when I am forced to, it is mostly just sadness and pity.

As far as media violence contributing to real world violence, it probably does to some extent, but nowhere near as much as mouthpieces are suggesting. If you were to try to calculate the causal factors of the last few deadly ammofests, violence in media would be one of the thinnest slices. We are a peace-preaching society of violence, and trying to reduce the actual violence by getting rid of the portrayed violence might help a little, but probably only a tiny bit as long as the big slices remain untouched.
Click to expand...
Mortal Kombat used to be perhaps the top video game in America. But I don’t recall a rash of people committing “fatalities” by ripping out people’s spines or throwing them into pits full of spikes.

We have many black and white movies with lots of shooting in them. We had radio programs before that depicting gunfights. This isn’t a recent phenomenon.

So those with a certain agenda will blame doors, or movies, or video games, or dungeons and dragons, or woke parents emasculating their male kids, or, or, or… anything BUT guns. Because it can’t POSSIBLY be the most obvious solution, adopted by many other countries who have solved the problem.
 
SuperMatt said:
Mortal Kombat used to be perhaps the top video game in America. But I don’t recall a rash of people committing “fatalities” by ripping out people’s spines or throwing them into pits full of spikes.

We have many black and white movies with lots of shooting in them. We had radio programs before that depicting gunfights. This isn’t a recent phenomenon.

So those with a certain agenda will blame doors, or movies, or video games, or dungeons and dragons, or woke parents emasculating their male kids, or, or, or… anything BUT guns. Because it can’t POSSIBLY be the most obvious solution, adopted by many other countries who have solved the problem.
Click to expand...

Spot on, well stated!
 
SuperMatt said:
Mortal Kombat used to be perhaps the top video game in America. But I don’t recall a rash of people committing “fatalities” by ripping out people’s spines or throwing them into pits full of spikes.

We have many black and white movies with lots of shooting in them. We had radio programs before that depicting gunfights. This isn’t a recent phenomenon.

So those with a certain agenda will blame doors, or movies, or video games, or dungeons and dragons, or woke parents emasculating their male kids, or, or, or… anything BUT guns. Because it can’t POSSIBLY be the most obvious solution, adopted by many other countries who have solved the problem.
Click to expand...

I remember in the film ‘Bowling for Columbine’ Michael Moore makes a valid point that all these same violent films and computer games are available and consumed by people in other countries. However, they don’t seem to have individuals walking into schools on a regular basis to shoot kids.

If Britain had the same access to guns and the same thirst for owning them as Americans, I have no doubt we’d see lots of shootings. Imagine going out on a night out but some people are carrying guns? There’s already plenty of fights and I just wouldn’t trust society to be able to handle them. People are strange as Jim Morrison used to say and I already encounter far too many people on my daily commute who have no problem killing you with their appalling driving, let alone letting them have the ‘right’ to carry a firearm lol. No thanks!
 
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1536004155894120449/

The deal reportedly will include some kind of “encouragement“ for states to pass red flag laws (which they are renaming). It will not ban assault weapons. It will not raise the age for buying AR-15s (or equivalents). It will change background checks for 18-20 year old buyers to include checks of their juvenile records. It will include money for school security and mental health.

I support anything to make obtaining these weapons more difficult, but this is pretty weak sauce. And I don’t support the money for school security because we see exactly how that money ACTUALLY gets spent. It’s doors that prevent police from stopping the killer, and police departments that disproportionately target black kids.

I support increased money for mental health services, but if they do it through Medicare or Medicaid, the “Red” states will probably block it anyway.

AND - As I said before, I bet even this weak sauce bill will not get 10 GOP Senators to sign on. The NRA will make sure of it. Even a bill that issued a proclamation that ”gun violence is bad mmmkay” would be opposed by the NRA and Senators wouldn’t support it. Because some Republican candidate even further to the right would run ads in their district saying they want to take away your guns.
 
"Mental health" and "Hardening" are the reflexive GOP goto phrases knowing that will likely not happen. Hardening schools? What about churches, synagogues, shopping malls, music venues, night clubs, big box stores, libraries, colleges/universities, and on and on? And mental health? Will there be a 1-800 number for whenever you're feeling a little crazy in the head? Guaranteed it will be no more than that.

The GOP cares *much* more about guns than slaughtered school children.
 
Here's Chris Murphy's tweet:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1536013602846560256/

He says getting this passed will be difficult, even though the reforms are modest at best. I wonder if some Democrats, especially in the House, will vote against it because it doesn't go far enough (knowing their vote may not affect the result), just as some/many Republicans will do the same because it places any restrictions on gun ownership.
 
I kind of wonder if there is a headspace like "I don't have any guns, but those people who do have guns make me nervous and I don't want to piss them off".
 
Herdfan said:
No but since there is no real definition of assault weapon, I try not to use it. To many people think AR stands for Assault Rifle.
Click to expand...
When a person can walk into a classroom and pulverise dozens of kids into unrecognizable masses of meat so easily within minutes from a doorway, I say we constitute that as an assault weapon.
 
A man in Michigan may have lost his right to "bear arms" after his house was shaken by a series of explosions of ammo and small explosives. He was apparently doing some thing with a bomb when bad stuff happened. The man had "an arsenal" to go along with his criminal record and was under investigation at the time.
 
Yoused said:
A man in Michigan may have lost his right to "bear arms" after his house was shaken by a series of explosions of ammo and small explosives. He was apparently doing some thing with a bomb when bad stuff happened. The man had "an arsenal" to go along with his criminal record and was under investigation at the time.
Click to expand...

I'm a little disappointed your link text wasn't a pun, and the guy actually lost his ... well, you know ...
 
Yoused said:
I kind of wonder if there is a headspace like "I don't have any guns, but those people who do have guns make me nervous and I don't want to piss them off".
Click to expand...

I think that sentiment applies to all the spineless Republican politicians towards Trump supporters on any legislation, not just gun control.
 
Yoused said:
A man in Michigan may have lost his right to "bear arms" after his house was shaken by a series of explosions of ammo and small explosives. He was apparently doing some thing with a bomb when bad stuff happened. The man had "an arsenal" to go along with his criminal record and was under investigation at the time.
Click to expand...

But the damage may be much worse, as The Detroit News reports that the man lost both arms in the explosion.
Click to expand...

🤷‍♂️

Let's hope the investigation continues and that if he was supplying guns, ammo or bombs to others, they're tracked down and forbidden to bear arms... like him.
 
Imagine if congress put the same effort into protecting children from mass shooting as they did protecting one SCOTUS justice from just the thought of it.
 
Here’s the level of crazy we’re dealing with when it comes to Republicans and gun control:

www.joplinglobe.com

Group of Missouri Republican state lawmakers pushes Blunt to oppose Senate gun deal

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Four dozen Republican state lawmakers, including nine seeking higher office, want U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt to reverse his position and oppose the U.S. Senate gun control
www.joplinglobe.com www.joplinglobe.com

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Four dozen Republican state lawmakers, including nine seeking higher office, want U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt to reverse his position and oppose the U.S. Senate gun control deal he helped negotiate.
Click to expand...
It’s not surprising they oppose even the most minor of gun restrictions, but let’s get into their reasoning:

The red flag law provisions have drawn attacks from gun rights groups and were the target of the letter from state Rep. Tony Lovasco, R-O’Fallon, and signed by 43 additional Missouri House members and four members of the state Senate.

In the letter, they noted that most versions of red flag laws authorize courts to seize guns from someone considered dangerous without requiring a criminal conviction and, in many cases, without the targeted person in court.

“The proposal in question seeks to allow Congress to deflect responsibility for enacting such horrid laws by essentially punting to the states,” the letter states. “Knowing that forcing such immoral and unconstitutional provisions nationwide would not garner enough votes to overcome a filibuster, Sen. (Chris) Murphy instead proposes to bribe states with their own tax money to do his dirty work for him.”
Click to expand...

So, the bill doesn’t actually create a red flag law. But these politicians from Missouri oppose it because it might encourage OTHER states to create red flag laws.

So, basically nothing would change in Missouri, but they are pitching a hissy fit anyway! As usual, “States’ rights” is a load of 💩 to be shoveled out of the barn only when convenient.

With such an extreme Republican Party, it’s no surprise that none of the 10 GOP Senators supporting this bill are up for re-election this cycle (Blunt from Missouri is retiring).
 
Yoused said:
Another day, another shooting.

www.al.com

Vestavia Hills church shooting: 2 dead, 1 injured at St. Stephen’s Episcopal, shooter in custody

The incident happened during a “Boomers Potluck” dinner.
www.al.com www.al.com
Click to expand...

There was another "mass shooting" (by definition) in Oakland last night, 1 dead and 2 injured. I don't think it was gang related. Otherwise they most likely wouldn't have reported it the way they did....or possibly at all.

I realize gun violence has gone up, but I also think so has reporting on shootings, like a lot more on lesser by comparison shootings. Like a shooting at a bar wouldn't have been reported nationally a few years ago because that's just what drunk people do in our country, not newsworthy. Similar to what I said above in regards to perceived gang violence in Oakland.
 
Back
Top