Comments
-
The American Gun Control DebateAre all of you just completely unaware of what an insurgency is and how it works?
We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it, but if that were to happen the army isn't going to stop it.
If the citizenry is unarmed? All you have is hopes and prayers that it never comes to that. An unshakable faith in the incorruptibleness of power structures - one that I do not share.
The power structures of the US and the EU, and probably of just about every other country in the world, are already corrupt. The only question is whether they'll turn violent. — Tzeentch
This is too stupid to engage with further -
The American Gun Control DebateWe're really running the gamut on what gun proponents are asking us to imagine. On one end we're being asked by @Tzeentch to envision a vague government takeover that requires wide gun ownership to counter. Maybe if he repeats the phrase "armed peasants" in a mirror three times it will come true. On the other hand, we're also asked by @Moses to not use political imagination at all! Enforcement is too difficult, we cannot possible stop a determined mass shooter. So we're simultaneously being asked to use the fullest extent of our political imagination, i.e. a government takeover, in order to comprehend the necessity of gun ownership, as well as restrain our political imagination in order to accept the futility of gun control.
Both of course are examples of American exceptionalism; Americans being exceptionally stupid and myopic when there are plenty of comparative examples to limit and control gun ownership in other countries. Australia confiscated over half a million privately-owned guns through a mandatory government buy-back program, which helped decrease the suicide rate by 57% (down 74% in 2010) and homicide by 42% seven years after implementation. Japan requires a background check including criminal records, a mental health check, a strict limit on what type of gun they can buy, and a strict limit on how many gun shops are allowed to operate in each prefecture. America can also reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which, as you can see from the chart, helped limit deaths from mass shootings until the GOP allowed it to expire in 2004.
The US government can also clamp down on firearm manufactures from making certain firearms, which coupled with mandatory buybacks, can greatly limit the amount of semi-automatics and automatics from the marketplace. The government can also end gun-maker liability protections (and impose heavy heavy fines and hold executives responsible). -
The American Gun Control DebateGuns used in-self defense are also pretty rare. They are far more likely to be used for suicide. So again we have arguments founded on adult fantasy.
-
The American Gun Control DebateYou seem to be confusing our opinion of banning guns outright with banning guns exclusively for non-criminals.
-
The American Gun Control Debate"How about if everything was different would you change your mind then"
-
The American Gun Control DebateI would possibly be open to keep 2A on a very strict originalist interpretation, that is, the only gun someone could own would be a replica of a gun comminly used during the late 18th century, like a Brown Bess or something that takes 30 seconds to load and fire with a 50% accuracy at 300 feet.
-
The American Gun Control Debateyou know shit is hitting the fan when even mainstream news like NYT, CNN, AP etc. are questioning what happened with security forces.
-
What Are You Watching Right Now?I have completed my pandemic goal of watching all of Sight and Sound's Critics Top 250 Films list
-
The American Gun Control DebatePeasants with guns have been besting professional militaries for decades (throughout all of human history, really), including the US military on several occasions.
And fighting against a guerilla on your own soil, against your own people? A modern military wouldn't stand a chance, no matter how much barbarism it is willing to resort to. — Tzeentch
If you are going to use historical precedence to justify your argument you ought to look at actual examples of US militia fighting against and being defeated by superior federal forces. US militia uprising are not the Viet Cong. They are not the Taliban. Otherwise, the argument that 2A is a viable bulwark against some sort of abstract military takeover remains a vague hypothetical in contradistinction to the tangible and on-going problem of gun violence and mass shootings that currently plague the country. We are sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to firearms each year in order to shelter an adult fantasy. -
The American Gun Control DebateGiven the last and the current US presidents, and the recent propensity in the US and the world towards authoritarianism, I'd say keep the second amendment right where it is. — Tzeentch
Civilians with guns are not going to stop the US military, there have been a number of militia uprisings within the US in the last two decades and they have all been handily defeated by federal forces. This is just role-playing fantasy. -
The American Gun Control Debate"Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch...The gun is our Moloch." — Maw
-
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West BankOk these have been up for 2 hours where are the mods
-
Currently ReadingWhat did you think of Smith and Suwandi? — Streetlight
I enjoyed them both very much, thanks for the recommendation. I found Smith's work very informative, albeit highly technical and dense at times, as you mention in your short review. Suwandi painted a clearer picture (she's a better writer too) that offered a more material understanding of some of the more abstract concepts Smith provided, e.g. concrete examples of global labor arbitrage, or labor flexibility, and the interviews she conducted with Indonesian factory managers, etc.. -
The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?
With a simple majority vote (50 plus 1 from Kamala), Democrats could change the filibuster that would allow for a legislative codification of Roe v. Wade to pass with another simple majority, rather than the current rule that requires 60, which, to be clear, the Democrats will likely never achieve in decades. Democrats technically have the votes to accomplish the above, but nominal Democrats Manchin and Sinema have stated explicitly that they will not vote to end the 60 vote filibuster and there doesn't seem to be much pressure from Biden, who campaigned on the promise to codify Roe v. Wade, or from the Democratic party at large to get them to do so.
I can't help but compare the Democrats apathy towards their two congressional colleagues unwillingness to conform to party lines with the reaction to GOP congressman Madison Cawthorn's accusations that members of his party engage in Eyes Wide Shut orgies and coke binges; the subsequent photo and video leaks was certainly done by GOP operatives to punish an insubordinate party member.
It's all probably moot anyway, since whatever legislature the Democrats could pass would likely be struck down by a hostile Supreme Court. -
The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?I'm certainly not laying all the blame on RBG. That would be absurd. Her culpability, however, is inescapable and I resent the hagiography that surrounds her, particular that which developed within the last decade of her life - spawned, in part due to her resistance to retire under Obama.
-
The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?(1) The US Senate had a GOP-majority from 2011-2021; Moscow Mitch denied "44" one SC nominee in 2016 and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have denied another in 2013-2014. (2) Dems have failed to codify protections for reproduction right's for over four decades. (3) As a member of a co-equal branch of government, no SC Justice is or has ever been obligated to resign her lifetime appointment for partisan political expedience – sexist double standard via hindsight bias! — 180 Proof
1) The GOP did not have a senate majority until 2014, not 2011. Democrats controlled the Senate under Obama from 2009-2013 during which Ginsburg, having recently undergone pancreatic cancer surgery, could have retired and safely been replaced by a liberal judge.
2) Yes maybe their inability to do so would have been a red flag for RBG to retire strategically. Of course the Democrats also suck, I'm happy to distribute blame beyond RBG. Like the sword of Damocles the Dems have dangled the GOP threat towards abortion rights for years as a paramount reason to vote for them. This is where the strategy has lead them.
3) This is simply not true, Breyer faced pressure to retire, and fortunately had the good sense to do so. Trump/GOP also worked to convince the ~80 year old Anthony Kennedy to retire and be replaced by a raging alcoholic Federalist Society member in his 50s, surely for overt political purposes. Nothing to do with sexism; I'm baffled by that connection. Regardless, she was a public servant within an increasingly partisan and increasingly powerful branch of Government and it was selfish to treat her lifetime appointment with such a self-serving attitude.
a proven champion of women's civil/human rights and tireless, life-long public servant, is fucking shameful, Maw. — 180 Proof
Yes wonderful, and due to her explicit stubbornness not only will we see a rollback of women's rights, likely gay rights, continued rollback of civil rights, etc., but Ketanji Brown Jackson, the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court, will likely be writing dissents for the rest of her career on the bench. What's really more shameful here? -
The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?Christian Taliban — Baden
This Christian Evangelical movement predates the Taliban. It's completely home grown, no need to transpose it. -
The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?GFY, man — 180 Proof
Obama met with Ginsburg in 2013 to encourage her to retire before the midterm election. Instead, she resisted pressure from the President and other liberals, remained on the bench, and the rest is history; she was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and roll back women's rights so that mothers had more rights than their daughters do today. That's inescapably RBG's legacy. She had the opportunity to retire and allow a Democratic President with a Democratic controlled senate pick her replacement. Instead she allowed egotistical arrogance to take precedence over political imperative. Had she died during her surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2009 Roe v. Wade would not have been overturned, given that Roberts likely sided with the liberal wing and the vote is 5-4, and therefore millions of women would have retained a fundamental bodily right (not to mention how the ruling places gay marriage, and contraceptives on the chopping block). I would much rather prefer a Supreme Court Justice die of cancer in her then mid-70s then the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the cataclysmic political and social consequences we're about to face. -
Currently ReadingCaliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primative Accumulation by Silvia Federici
40% off Verso books until May 16th -
Currently Reading:up:
Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Super-Exploitation, and Capitalism’s Final Crisis by John Smith -
Currently Reading@StreetlightX which should I start first Value Chains: The New Economic Imperialism or Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century
-
Currently ReadingIf you can, let me know how you find the Traverso book — StreetlightX
I'm a bit mixed on it. The thesis wasn't as compact as, say, Dienstag's Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit; it bounces around a lot between history of left-wing political defeat, memory, the relationship, both personal and philosophical, between particular Western Marxists, imagery (movies, art), Bohemianism. And I would say that at least 25% of the material was very thinly connected to melancholia. Otherwise, some of the material was certainly interesting, but I was left wanted a lot more.
The Mooers book sounds great, I'll add it to my Verso cart. -
Cancel Culture doesn't existIt's 2022 why are people still whining about cancel culture, go outside, breath fresh air, watch a movie, go to the bar and grab a beer.
-
Cancel Culture doesn't existInteresting, but quoting Maw on anything is about as useful as quoting one of those action man dolls with the pull cord on the back, and the other is yourself. — Isaac
Who are you? -
What are you listening to right now?Another awesome band. My aesthetics professor in Montreal actually played in a band with some of the Godspeed members. Weird guy, but a good philosophy professor and an ace trumpet player. — Seppo
That's very cool, yeah I love GY!BE, I saw them live in 2011 in Los Angeles - stood right in the front by Efrim.
Maw
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum