Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[row_33]

classical liberals is a better term than true

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, row_33 said:

classical liberals is a better term than true

 

 

 

Normally I would agree. But in this country, the term "liberal" has been hijacked by progressive fascists who are too ignorant of history and political philosophy to understand the error in their terminology. 

[Cinga]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He is. He's a fascist who thinks himself a progressive. The most dangerous kind of useful idiot. The kind who doesn't have any sense of history, or what liberalism actually means in a philosophical and historical context. 

 

True liberals believe in liberty of the individual over the tyranny of the state and the mob. 

 

True liberals believe in and understand the import of freedom of speech, thought, the right to privacy privacy, due process, and the right to self defense. 

 

True liberals understand the import of these inalienable rights because they have a grasp of history which shows, unequivocally, that if left unchecked the natural evolution of the State trends towards oppression and tyranny. Thus being an true liberal requires vigilance to guard against governmental over-reach - not the forfeiture of the very inalienable rights liberal philosophers gave their lives to birth during the enlightenment and which were finally codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. 

 

This republic is one of mankind's greatest achievements. It's an achievement of liberal thought and ideals in the true definition of the philosophy. Defending it does not remove one's liberal credentials. It bolsters it. 

 

That's something Grant fails to understand because he's ignorant of history, ignorant of philosophy, and has the intellectual capacity of a thimble. Grant's a fascist who thinks himself a progressive. Rather than contemplate the truth in that statement, he'll be back here with a blathering diatribe which will only prove my point. 

Excellent explanation! I had thought about getting into that in my rant above, but don't have the patience you do with a character like Grant.

[row_33]

40 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Normally I would agree. But in this country, the term "liberal" has been hijacked by progressive fascists who are too ignorant of history and political philosophy to understand the error in their terminology. 

 

everyone in the US is free to make up whatever definition they like to label themselves

 

Liberal

Leftist

Black

White

Evangelical

Religious

Spiritual

 

I don't envy it....

 

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by row_33

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, Cinga said:

In your mind, liberals are all willing to give up their Constitutional Rights for more government control huh? Never occurred to you some might like those Rights?

 

And Goebbels was a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.  The whole fallback on calling people Nazis is old and boring especially when it is your own beliefs and party closest to what they stood for

 

I've stood aside and watched you make an a55 of yourself on here, but you really are some special kind of stupid aren't you?

 

Well Cinga, I hate to break it to you but the Nazis were not truthful about a great number of things. The Nazis were not socialists in anything other than name, just like "Republicans" aren't the upholders of the ideals of a republic; in fact, just the opposite. Their actions did, however, very much show them to be brutal nationalists.

 

Nationalists, like many of the horde on this board, historically tend to use any other self-definition to disguise their intentions. They're not "white nationalists" but "patriots" or "true liberals" or "just want things to be the way they used to be." 

 

The Republican Party, and all of the conservatives, 'independents', 'true liberals,' 'libertarians', 'good christians', 'constitutional defenders', that fall within, are nationalists. It is a position of blind faith & loyalty.  It is the idea that this country was always intended for them, and any "others" are enemies. 

 

Just like the Nationalists in Germany, the failing American right has attempted to claim they are being persecuted, that they are under attack, and the only way to maintain their Nationalist agenda is to fight back by any means necessary.

 

 

You're not wrong about one thing, though — the American left has so often used the "Nazi" label for the right that it has lost some impact, even if the shoe did fit. Now of course we have actual American Nazis.  They still like to use the "socialist" label though, though they have also clarified their position.

 

Quote

Indeed, the American Nazi Party, first named the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists by its founder George Lincoln Rockwell in 1959 before he changed the name a year later, specifically states that “National Socialism” applies to whites. The party’s official website describes the two main tenets of the term are “the Struggle for Aryan Racial survival, and Social Justice for White Working Class people throughout our land.”

http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-democrats-socialists-alt-right-650572

 

Frankly, I was expecting the "but Hitler took away guns" counterargument to happen much earlier than page 28. It's one of the, like, 10 weak & emotional counter-arguments to common sense reform and a common enough "gotcha" attempt by conservatives that of course there's already a Snopes piece thoroughly dissecting it. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/  (Can't wait for the chorus of "lol Snopes?? Read a trustworthy source like the Federalist")

 

You don't even need Snopes to understand why the National Socialist party were not "socialist" but that would require understanding definitions and history, instead of just yapping how you do while proving the opposite.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/

Bottom line: You, nor the group who agree with you, are not fighting for human "rights" in any intellectually honest way. Not even close. You're fighting for your group's right to rule, a right that you believe is divine, merely substituting "Founders" for "God." It doesn't even matter that actually reading the Constitution makes it abundantly obvious that the Founders' dream of America was for people to reject the dogmatic adherence you insist upon, that the goal was for people to be entitled to happiness, to have the ability to determine their lives for themselves, and for society to do the same in broader ways, through a process of rigorous debate, a dream they had that has clearly been deferred and inverted. 

 

Not unlike the Bible-thumpers who use God to advocate hateful actions, you're looking at a tiny piece of bark and thinking you see the forest. The reverse of this is usually the claim that "well liberals are intolerant of my beliefs" which is more of the previously-seen tactic of conflation, as though "rejecting minorities claims for equal status" is somehow the same as "rejecting that rejection." (See: Trump suggesting there's fault on "both sides" between white supremacists & those who oppose white supremacy; would he also say there was fault on "both sides" between Jews and Nazis in WWII Germany?)

 

In your group's mind (as demonstrated repeatedly in this thread), the question is already settled. There can be no other way — no matter how destructive a certain way has proven to be, no matter how many people suffer unnecessarily, no matter how many people support trying to solve the problem.
 

Universal Background Checks make sense for everyone and are a fair compromise... except to Nationalists, who are offended at the mere suggestion. Because 'God' gave you guns, and that is that.

 

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Normally I would agree. But in this country, the term "liberal" has been hijacked by progressive fascists who are too ignorant of history and political philosophy to understand the error in their terminology. 

 

Stop dodging. Answer the direct question you were asked for once.

 

Are you alone? Do you have support in your life, a wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year?

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Stop dodging. Answer the direct question you were asked for once.

 

 

If you think I'm still reading your drivel, you're mistaken. I tried engaging with you honestly and respectfully for two weeks. You never returned that gesture despite my patience. Why? because you're here to shout at the walls rather than engage in an honest discussion. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

If you think I'm still reading your drivel, you're mistaken. I tried engaging with you honestly and respectfully for two weeks. You never returned that gesture despite my patience. Why? because you're here to shout at the walls rather than engage in an honest discussion. 

 

Stop dodging. Answer the question.

 

Are you alone? Do you have support in your life, a wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year?

 

(If this badgering tactic seems familiar, you may recognize it as the same one you used on me, two separate times!)

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Stop dodging. Answer the question.

 

Are you alone? Do you have support in your life, a wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year?

 

(If this badgering tactic seems familiar, you may recognize it as the same one you used on me, two separate times!)

 

I'm aware of the tactic. I'm just better at it than you are because it comes from a place of honesty with me, not petulance. 

 

 

[LA Grant]

56 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I'm aware of the tactic. I'm just better at it than you are because it comes from a place of honesty with me, not petulance. 

 

Actually, I'm coming from the exact same place of honesty/petulance you were, with the same dishonorable tactic you employed. If you'd been approaching things with the aim of respect you claim, you'd either have understood my reluctance to answer when you pressed me, or you'd play fair when you're asked similar questions. So not only dishonorable then, but also dishonest.

 

Your non-answer implies an answer, anyway. It's quite clear that you must be alone, not necessarily for the time spent here, but because who could be in a relationship with someone devoid of empathy for others?

 

I hope you figure it out, honestly... if not the Deep State conspiracy, then at least some way to be happier in real life. Godspeed, Rhino.

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

Why are you still !@#$ing here?  

[LA Grant]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Why are you still !@#$ing here?  

 

To keep things fair & balanced, of course. That and Soros pays per word.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Why are you still !@#$ing here?  

Because he's a crusading neo-Marxist, now reading directly from his critical X theory text book; and is so consumed by delusions of grandeur that he thinks he's winning, even though he's literally become unhinged to the point that he's calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist, and is asserting that national culture and identities aren't important (while at the same time stressing their importance for "aggrieved peoples"), and are actually a net negative if they are rooted in European heritage.

 

It's real reason he's interested in guns.  As much as gun rights activists see guns as a tool necessary to preserving our freedoms, Grant sees the dead bodies of children as tools necessary to his agenda of removing those freedoms.  He just told us of his contempt for our Euro-centric American values, law, culture and heritage; and he told us earlier of his views of our Constitution as problematic towards the ends of his preferred philosophies which consist of an activist socialist government eager to use a monopoly on force to bend people towards how he wants them to live based on the whims of the majority, unrestrained by strict enumerated powers.

 

Grant doesn't believe in the concept of rights.  He believes in the absolute power of the state to compel individuals to undertake specific actions to the exclusion of all others.  Grant is a slave maker and a would be tin-pot dictator, if only he had been born to power.

 

[LA Grant]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Because he's a crusading neo-Marxist, now reading directly from his critical X theory text book; and is so consumed by delusions of grandeur that he thinks he's winning, even though he's literally become unhinged to the point that he's calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist, and is asserting that national culture and identities aren't important (while at the same time stressing their importance for "aggrieved peoples"), and are actually a net negative if they are rooted in European heritage.

 

It's real reason he's interested in guns.  As much as gun rights activists see guns as a tool necessary to preserving our freedoms, Grant sees the dead bodies of children as tools necessary to his agenda of removing those freedoms.  He just told us of his contempt for our Euro-centric American values, law, culture and heritage; and he told us earlier of his views of our Constitution as problematic towards the ends of his preferred philosophies which consist of an activist socialist government eager to use a monopoly on force to bend people towards how he wants them to live based on the whims of the majority, unrestrained by strict enumerated powers.

 

Grant doesn't believe in the concept of rights.  He believes in the absolute power of the state to compel individuals to undertake specific actions to the exclusion of all others.  Grant is a slave maker and a would be tin-pot dictator, if only he had been born to power.

 

Ooooooooooooo, here we go. Push a little bit and then the truth comes out — sounds like you fear gun control because, in your mind, once that happens, all white people will become slaves??

 

"Euro-centric" is interesting, since I thought one of your arguments against gun reform was that America shouldn't look to Europe or other developed countries, despite their proven success with the measure; somehow white people are not enslaved throughout Europe even though they don't have unfettered legal access to guns like Americans. But it's "heritage" that reveals your true nature here. It really just goes back to everything I said a few posts ago. You lean on "Founders" in the same vein Westboro Baptist would use "God," as an unquestionable higher authority to "prove" that your Nationalist agenda is morally just. It's not based on reason but on dogma, and dogma can't be argued against.

 

It is a hallmark of lower-order cognition.

 

I bet if I kept pushing you I could get you to say that America was founded by white christians and should belong to white christians.

[Paulus]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Why are you still !@#$ing here?  

It is a shitposting thread, if you dont like it, go to the gun debate thread. 

 

I think open borders will benefit America, because I can hire cheaper prostitutes. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

This thread seems like a good place for this:  SA Parliament votes to seize the land of white farmers without compensation.

 

Spearheaded by Julius Malema, who leads SA's Economic Freedom Party, using language like: "go after the white man" and "we must cut the throat of whiteness".  This is exactly what happened in Zimbabwe in the period leading to the genocide there.

 

I use this particular example because it is happening in a Western nation, today.

[Koko78]

58 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This thread seems like a good place for this:  SA Parliament votes to seize the land of white farmers without compensation.

 

Spearheaded by Julius Malema, who leads SA's Economic Freedom Party, using language like: "go after the white man" and "we must cut the throat of whiteness".  This is exactly what happened in Zimbabwe in the period leading to the genocide there.

 

I use this particular example because it is happening in a Western nation, today.

 

Let me be clear: Those white devils should sacrifice their lives, property, and liberty to the righteousness of mob rule. It's the right thing to do.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This thread seems like a good place for this:  SA Parliament votes to seize the land of white farmers without compensation.

 

Spearheaded by Julius Malema, who leads SA's Economic Freedom Party, using language like: "go after the white man" and "we must cut the throat of whiteness".  This is exactly what happened in Zimbabwe in the period leading to the genocide there.

 

I use this particular example because it is happening in a Western nation, today.

 

What could possibly go wrong?  The forced evictions of landowners have been remarkably successful at raising the general population's welfare in the past century or so.  /sarcasm

 

Hopefully, when they get to thinking through how to do this "without disrupting agricultural production" cooler heads prevail.  But wouldn't want to have any money on it.

[boyst]

On 3/7/2018 at 10:37 AM, row_33 said:

So the bakers have collectively stated that any further enforced work by the courts will result in a large ad in the local newspaper advising that the proceeds from the cake of the blessed union will be denoted to the local Crisis Pregnancy Center.  Brilliant!!! 

 

 

Fags can't get pregnant up the ass. Duh.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

What could possibly go wrong?  The forced evictions of landowners have been remarkably successful at raising the general population's welfare in the past century or so.  /sarcasm

 

Hopefully, when they get to thinking through how to do this "without disrupting agricultural production" cooler heads prevail.  But wouldn't want to have any money on it.

The cooler heads aren't involved in the conversation.  The new law is an extension of policy aimed at "a more equitable distribution of property along racial lines", which will lead to "prosperity as the expert black farmers seize the land of the incompetent white farmers, raising up the sustenance of the people."

 

This is how genocides start, the most notably similar in Zimbabwe.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The coolIr heads aren't involved in the conversation.  The new law is an extension of policy aimed at "a more equitable distribution of property along racial lines", which will lead to "prosperity as the expert black farmers seize the land of the incompetent white farmers, raising up the sustenance of the people."

 

This is how genocides start, the most notably similar in Zimbabwe.

 

Wasn't clear on my statement about "cooler heads" apparently.  Meant that before they try to implement the policy would hope that they realize these schemes never work out for anybody except, arguably, the few oligarchs that end up with the spoils.  It's arguably that even they end up ahead in the grand scheme because they invariably don't know how to maintain the productivity of what they just stole.

 

If this goes through expect starving people w/in a decade.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Taro T