I ran a café for queers for a while and, not kidding, had to chase out a guy who was armed with an axe. He assaulted a friend in the movement less than eight hours later. And then there's the nazi's posting my home address online calling me an "enemy" every couple of years but the real shit went down in the nineties. Someone wrote on your sign? Cry me a river.
But but... What about people online who feel offended when you don't engage them? What about people who feel attacked because they can't use slurs? And won't you please consider the people who get angry when you point out their hypocrisy. Clearly there are those who have worse than you.
There are so many sarcastic things I could say but frankly it's just a sad affair all around, from the people who's taken on hate as an identity to the people having to deal with their constant attacks. And you know some of those folks will have queer kids just trying their best to survive and others are self hating queers trying to compensate after growing up with hateful parents.
A fucking axe!? Should've shot the fucker as soon as he raised it.
And no, happy_frog, nobody who has engaged with your content feels attacked for not being able to use slurs. The actual story is that I was talking about slurs encountered in my educational curriculum, and then recalling slurs used on me. Including from you.
Don't pretend you're not the hypocrite or anything more than common bully.
So- I need to be clear this is a reply to the comment thread and not TO or ABOUT famousone (that is not sarcastic or with a wink- this is NOT about or AT famousone.)
It’s sad.
Not so long ago, many people debated if it was ok for a baker to refuse to do business with a gay couple of their “gayness” offended the baker. Many argued that it was a basic American right to refuse to do business with a person who you found offensive for any reason, even something intrinsic and natural to their state of being.
Now when a public figure offends people with their words or actions and those people say: “I won’t do business with you…” many of the same people who were on the bakers side are saying “this is wrong!”
While accusing others of playing “victim” cards, many of these people play the victim, “our way of life is under attack” and so on; but the “attacks” they face for not being LGBTQ+ Usually aren’t ropes and axes, just people telling them they have to treat others as human.
Idk how this got disrupted so quickly, but honestly, who gives a shit what people wanna do in their safe spaces (not saying it ironically).
.
I don't agree with, nor will I ever support so much of what the trans community has been trying to force on society as a whole lately.
.
But when it comes to them as individual people chilling out in cafes, or fucking other consenting adults, unless someone in there molested your kid, there is literally zero reason to head in there with an ax.
.
I can say I've seen far more people in the LGBT community these days willing to dox and harass dissenting viewpoints online (and it's actively encouraged by companies like Netflix etc), but I've no doubt you've seen your share of ugliness in that front as well, Karl.
I maintain that all people need the means to defend themselves. And our brain dead "leaders" need to climb down from their towers and look at how real life treats we the people.
@famousone In the above example, imagine what more relaxed gun laws would've contributed? The Orlando nightclub shooting of 2016 springs to my mind. If I and the attacker/s had been armed all those times there'd been a lot of dead people, most like yours truly included. Instead there was a guy with an axe and a guy with a broom.
I mean- agreed with xvarnah that within certain bounds, what people do in their space is their business, or should be, and accordingly- people also should be allowed and accommodated to exist in society at large with the same opportunities as others.
Harassment and such are not inherently commendable things, and people of all view points on all issues often go “too far” or are too quick to shut down ANY dissenting view. That said, when people say “dissenting view” on issues like this what we are often referring to is a person who doesn’t believe another actually exists or is challenging their right to exist as any other. “intolerance of intolerance” is not stifling discussion. A tolerant society has room to discuss nuances of issues, but it has no place for intolerance and those who seek to take human rights and dignity from others based on who they are as a person.
No, Karl. You're wrong. I'm just gonna point out that the KKK and Democrats championed gun control because unarmed blacks are much easier to lynch. The NRA was founded to arm and train blacks, following the exact same rationale.
If half of your Euro fears about gums held any water, the distribution of violent crime in America would be literally flipped. But instead ya'll get stabbed, blown up, acid dumped, lynched, or shot anyways. And then huddle in place behind men with guns muttering to yourselves "Oh he was praising Allah, I hope nobody thinks I'm a bigot for running away after he ran over 50 of us and shot another 20! At least we aren't those crazy Americans, they'd have shot someone!"
@famousone- partial credit for partially correct info. Modern gun control started in sunny California. In 1967 armed black panthers marched on the state seat.
The panthers had been causing concern in and around the Bay Area and the state- then the nation- because- as you said- they were an armed black community group founded to protect the black community from crimes and police abuse.
Governor Ronald Reagan, Republican poster child and noted lover of jelly beans, signed the Mulford act, drafted by Republican Don Mulford.
The NRA actually supported the Mulford act- they didn't want the panthers to have their guns either.
You can fact check each of these statements as they are..
.. 100% verifiably true. The national firearms act came years later after the Kennedy Assassination. Gun control had not really been such a hot button issue before the Mulford act, not a political platform.
California carved its place as the gun control state and would go on to lead the nation in restriction to the second amendment with states and even the federal government often following its lead.
Reagan later signed the next major American gun law in 1986- among other things codifying parts to make silencers as silencers, and banning transfer of automatic weapons made after 1986. G Bush oversaw a platform based largely on stopping crime, guns and drugs being huge targets. Clinton made the next huge gun law.
But- yeah. Not arguing for or against, just clarifying some facts.
Reagan was wrong, and so was the NRA.
The Mulford act, like all acts of gun control, was an affront to individual rights that only hurts and disadvantages further the most vulnerable communities.
Reagan, Bush, Kennedy, Trump, Clinton, Roosevelt. I don't care what name is attached to it. It's wrong, a crime against liberty, and should be combatted and reversed by any means.
There was a lengthy period where the NRA was reclaimed by civil rights advocates, but that period ended years ago. Now they're only good as a scapegoat to distract from the Civil Rights groups doing real work to benefit American liberty.
I mean- I’m hoping you can take this joke as a joke- if 1934 is what you define as modern, it explains a lot! Hiyo.
I rib- but yes, the 1930’s saw some of the earliest serious gun laws being passed, but that wasn’t really the start of gun control as we know it today. The laws of the 30’s were mostly in response to mobsters and mass murders of the day and first levied a high tax for producing or transporting and selling weapons like automatic rifles and short barrel shot guns. The other big one of the 30’s required record keeping on gun sales and licensing of arms dealers as well as prohibiting felons from owning guns among some other things.
At the federal level those were the big ones until the late 60’s. States had always had their own laws, but most didn’t have a lot of traction and weren’t really seen as “anti gun,” as most law abiding citizens with a voice weren’t threatened by them. California is where we started to see laws passed that were far reaching and legitimized the…
.. anti gun platform and brought restrictions that were really felt by Americans who hadn’t really had a reason to worry before that.
As the US government upped its game to repress communities of color, it flooded these communities with hard drugs often traded for arms to finance clandestine operations and arm regimes and terrorists they also infiltrated the panthers and began subverting them to extremist and criminal activities. This gave justification to further criminalize the organizations and those with similar views on civil rights while earning public buy in.
There were unforeseen consequences as gentrification ripped across the nation and suburbs exploded. Economic downturns like the “death blows” of American manufacturing and the closing of military bases in former blue collar communities like San Francisco coupled with fuel crises and other economic troubles all conspired to bring the “hard drugs” and malt liquor weaponized against people of color into the white world more and more. Ghettos and areas where people of color had been held down began to turn into war zones and that crime and related crime from the proximities of wealth to lack of wealth (plus opportunity) and more whites buying hard drugs and partying spilled over into “suburban America” and fancy uptown cities.
'34 is when they started doing all the shit that they're still building off of. And as far as firearms technology goes, and legal standing, the laws enacted then are entirely modern.
Hmmm…. I suppose it’s debatable since both the social acceptance of previous lesser gun laws and the legal precedents set by each sort of built up for the next.
I’m not going to argue it though, in my personal opinion I would consider the major gun laws of the 30’s the precursors to modern gun laws, but not as the first modern gun laws as both the period is almost a century ago now and the politics and climate as well as context of those laws was quite different than later major laws which were largely politically motivated and used guns as a rallying point.
So I wouldn’t contest it if you said you choose to consider those the first modern gun laws, I might note the above points, but I think the case could be made either way and see no harm in leaving it open to interpretation.
The cities near me were engulfed by political violence. A man was straight up murdered for "looking like a Trumper" and then that murder was celebrated by violent mobs that were carrying out race and politically based violence with the blessing of local politicians and democrats across the nation, nevermind the countless other homicides, thousands of injuries, and billions in damages. The looting and subsequent retail deserts. And the looming threat of continued violence if we have the audacity to vote against those who allowed and supported it.
MTG is scared? She can sit the fuck down if she's so clueless about what regular Americans have dealt with these days.
And no, happy_frog, nobody who has engaged with your content feels attacked for not being able to use slurs. The actual story is that I was talking about slurs encountered in my educational curriculum, and then recalling slurs used on me. Including from you.
Don't pretend you're not the hypocrite or anything more than common bully.
It’s sad.
Not so long ago, many people debated if it was ok for a baker to refuse to do business with a gay couple of their “gayness” offended the baker. Many argued that it was a basic American right to refuse to do business with a person who you found offensive for any reason, even something intrinsic and natural to their state of being.
Now when a public figure offends people with their words or actions and those people say: “I won’t do business with you…” many of the same people who were on the bakers side are saying “this is wrong!”
While accusing others of playing “victim” cards, many of these people play the victim, “our way of life is under attack” and so on; but the “attacks” they face for not being LGBTQ+ Usually aren’t ropes and axes, just people telling them they have to treat others as human.
.
I don't agree with, nor will I ever support so much of what the trans community has been trying to force on society as a whole lately.
.
But when it comes to them as individual people chilling out in cafes, or fucking other consenting adults, unless someone in there molested your kid, there is literally zero reason to head in there with an ax.
.
I can say I've seen far more people in the LGBT community these days willing to dox and harass dissenting viewpoints online (and it's actively encouraged by companies like Netflix etc), but I've no doubt you've seen your share of ugliness in that front as well, Karl.
Harassment and such are not inherently commendable things, and people of all view points on all issues often go “too far” or are too quick to shut down ANY dissenting view. That said, when people say “dissenting view” on issues like this what we are often referring to is a person who doesn’t believe another actually exists or is challenging their right to exist as any other. “intolerance of intolerance” is not stifling discussion. A tolerant society has room to discuss nuances of issues, but it has no place for intolerance and those who seek to take human rights and dignity from others based on who they are as a person.
If half of your Euro fears about gums held any water, the distribution of violent crime in America would be literally flipped. But instead ya'll get stabbed, blown up, acid dumped, lynched, or shot anyways. And then huddle in place behind men with guns muttering to yourselves "Oh he was praising Allah, I hope nobody thinks I'm a bigot for running away after he ran over 50 of us and shot another 20! At least we aren't those crazy Americans, they'd have shot someone!"
The panthers had been causing concern in and around the Bay Area and the state- then the nation- because- as you said- they were an armed black community group founded to protect the black community from crimes and police abuse.
Governor Ronald Reagan, Republican poster child and noted lover of jelly beans, signed the Mulford act, drafted by Republican Don Mulford.
The NRA actually supported the Mulford act- they didn't want the panthers to have their guns either.
You can fact check each of these statements as they are..
California carved its place as the gun control state and would go on to lead the nation in restriction to the second amendment with states and even the federal government often following its lead.
Reagan later signed the next major American gun law in 1986- among other things codifying parts to make silencers as silencers, and banning transfer of automatic weapons made after 1986. G Bush oversaw a platform based largely on stopping crime, guns and drugs being huge targets. Clinton made the next huge gun law.
But- yeah. Not arguing for or against, just clarifying some facts.
The Mulford act, like all acts of gun control, was an affront to individual rights that only hurts and disadvantages further the most vulnerable communities.
Reagan, Bush, Kennedy, Trump, Clinton, Roosevelt. I don't care what name is attached to it. It's wrong, a crime against liberty, and should be combatted and reversed by any means.
There was a lengthy period where the NRA was reclaimed by civil rights advocates, but that period ended years ago. Now they're only good as a scapegoat to distract from the Civil Rights groups doing real work to benefit American liberty.
I rib- but yes, the 1930’s saw some of the earliest serious gun laws being passed, but that wasn’t really the start of gun control as we know it today. The laws of the 30’s were mostly in response to mobsters and mass murders of the day and first levied a high tax for producing or transporting and selling weapons like automatic rifles and short barrel shot guns. The other big one of the 30’s required record keeping on gun sales and licensing of arms dealers as well as prohibiting felons from owning guns among some other things.
At the federal level those were the big ones until the late 60’s. States had always had their own laws, but most didn’t have a lot of traction and weren’t really seen as “anti gun,” as most law abiding citizens with a voice weren’t threatened by them. California is where we started to see laws passed that were far reaching and legitimized the…
As the US government upped its game to repress communities of color, it flooded these communities with hard drugs often traded for arms to finance clandestine operations and arm regimes and terrorists they also infiltrated the panthers and began subverting them to extremist and criminal activities. This gave justification to further criminalize the organizations and those with similar views on civil rights while earning public buy in.
I’m not going to argue it though, in my personal opinion I would consider the major gun laws of the 30’s the precursors to modern gun laws, but not as the first modern gun laws as both the period is almost a century ago now and the politics and climate as well as context of those laws was quite different than later major laws which were largely politically motivated and used guns as a rallying point.
So I wouldn’t contest it if you said you choose to consider those the first modern gun laws, I might note the above points, but I think the case could be made either way and see no harm in leaving it open to interpretation.
MTG is scared? She can sit the fuck down if she's so clueless about what regular Americans have dealt with these days.