Unfortunately they have this "It can't happen here" mentality.

"Tyranny can never happen here" and "Trump is Literally Worse than Hitler" coexist seemingly without issue in the egregore.

The left sure seems to love labeling him like that and seem to be unaware that they resemble Hitler more each passing day.
Or they just don't give a [redacted] knowing their mind washed masses don't care either.

I still haven't seen a single person say that "Trump is Literally Worse than Hitler". Citations?

Like Trump. He'll NEVER turn into an autocrat if they elect him again. Never ever.

Nope, he's not a democrat.

So you really think that Drumpf wouldn't become an autocrat if he could, or that an autocracy would be more likely with Democrats?

I completely disagree with both of those points.

Just for a start, consider what Drumpf constantly says, and look at his Agenda 47 plan, or Project 2025, which is a bald faced blueprint for Christian nationalist fascism put together by far right ideologues.

Your other point is pure paranoid conjecture completely without facts to base it on. If you've got any, please do share.

Pfft.

I'm not a Democrat, but you say they've been subjugating people? Examples please.

And Drumpf lifting people up? Exactly who would that be? White Christian nationalists, fascists, and dictators?

And getting awards? Exactly what were those, what were they for, and who granted them?

You also completely failed to address what I mentioned.

You have no supportable examples then. Cool. Why am I not surprised? There aren't any.

The only lame thing was that you refused to make a serious reply.

I would still welcome that. Go ahead and prove me wrong, assuming that you can. It shouldn't be too hard to find that information, if it exists.

Here, I did half of your work for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_.....y_Donald_Trump

Nothing of any real significance, especially after he was elected, unless you include his Ig Nobel, where he's clearly in good company.

Wonder how that compares to all of the other presidents in history, who ACTUALLY have significant positive achievements, even if they were pretty crappy overall?

as far as your other assertion, I find that impossible to look up, so that one's on you.

That was a political article? Really? I guess simple facts aren't good enough for you, then?

Where ARE all those awards Drumpf won for uplifting people then? I couldn't find anything else anywhere. Please do share your secret knowledge. I'd be happy to see them.

And you're still providing nothing to back up your claim that Democrats are subjugating anyone. You're still zero for zero here.

And now you're declaring your unsupportable claims a moot point? -A masterful gambit, I must say.

And I see that you don't recognize that that use of the word "Woke" is racist in that context or don't care. It's also a lameass cliche at this point that just makes the people using it look stupid.

Woke is a black American idiom for something completely positive. It means being politically aware. So you're against that?

It was co opted and its meaning twisted to the point of meaninglessness by its overuse by rightists. Very cool.

Great. completely ignore the point. brilliant.

Bias, prejudice, and discrimination aren't the same thing as racism. Racism is about a power balance and actual oppression. White people have the ability to oppress and exploit black people here and do. Black people don't have that kind of power, so wrong.

Just double checked on the award thing. Still see nothing significant at all. What am I missing?

Once again, feel free to point me at all of these awards he's earned for uplifting people.

And which first line? I've still seen nothing you've said here yet to substantiate your claim of Democrats subjugating anyone.

I also don't see how being politically aware promotes bias against white people. Explain please?

Hid all of your comments, eh? *Snrk!*

I have a firearm as does my wife. She has never killed anyone, I haven't since I left the Air Force. I also have a gun but I keep that well packed away between my legs.

I also own two Katana's, come try to take either of them. I hope you like the name stubby though.

Just because it's cliche, doesn't mean it's not the truth. :)

None of those countries match the situation in the US. If you're paranoid enough to think that you'll ever nave to battle our government or that that's an excuse to collect guns, or that that would do you any good, that's a you problem. I'll guarantee you that you never will, no matter how romantic and heroic you might imagine such a situation to be, or no matter the boner that idea gives you.

The proliferation of guns here and the lax attitude towards responsibly controlling them is clearly partially responsible for the deaths and maiming of innocent people, and the resultant fear and harm that this spreads through the populace, but you don't care about that, do you? You've made it clear over the years that you'll use any excuse to justify your ignorant and inhumane 2A absolutist stance. Most people, even gun owners, disagree with your position on this.

Alas, your nasal whining tends to be very short on actual facts and numbers. Am I to understand from the above that you still think gathering all of the USA's firepower (as if that was even remotely possible) in government hands is a good idea? Because Donald J. Trump and his cronies are the only ones in this nation who can be trusted with a monopoly on lethal weapons?

I would disagree, but you know that.

Of course I don't think anything like that.

As I've repeatedly said to you, I'm not even against guns per se. I'm just for much tighter controls on them because of how obviously dangerous they are. The US has a gun problem. Of course there are facts and numbers to back up what I say, but much of it is just obvious and common sense.

I really see very few people advocating for banning all guns, I'm certainly not one of those. And as you noted, that would hardly be possible.

As a bit of a side note, despite my impatience with your stance on guns and a few other things and your repeated attempts to insult me, I actually have a tendency to like you. Hard to really say why at this point, other than that I actually get along well with a lot of kinds of people. I'd just bet if we ever met face to face we'd get along fine, and It'd be fun to go target shooting with you.

There are reasons I block certain individuals here. The comment above is a good example of why. :)

Struth

I find it interesting that most of the shooting happen in predominantly Democrat run cities and counties, places like LA Chicago Atlanta so that means we got Democrats shooting Democrats in Democrat controlled areas.

A few years ago it was around 75% of the Nation's shootings happen in these areas. Of course this is where a majority of the crime is also happening but with DAs in those areas redefining crimes so they can say the crime rate is down doesn't help matters.

Interesting how that's happening, isn't it?

For example: https://heyjackass.com/ shows how things are doing in one of the blue cities with the toughest gun laws in the nation.

Most interesting, indeed.

Wait what? You're saying:

most of the shooting happen in predominantly Democrat run cities and counties

and immediately jump to:

so that means we got Democrats shooting Democrats in Democrat controlled areas

when talking about an area the size of a goddam city???

Look chum, I get that you have your political leanings and such (and leaving the subject matter entirely aside) it is just like... the wildest goddam leap to assume that every act of violence is perpetrated by... the people who also form the majority of the local voting bloc? Wouldn't it make even MORE sense for those acting out to NOT be a member of the majority, and thus unhappy with their situation and powerlessness to change it (thanks to first-past-the-post voting)?

Like, again, I make no comment on the content here... but that reasoning is way out in left field.

A simple search for "Are most shootings in Democratic or Republican areas?" would seem to contradict that. Be careful what you believe.

I think that positions such as Mitch's above are sad. I never block anyone, and would never proscribe anyone's speech here unless it was harmful. In that case, I just file a ticket.

I sincerely try to love everyone, no matter how much I may occasionally disagree with them, difficult though that may often be. I can handle people disagreeing with me and have reasonable discussions, but of course it's everybody's prerogative to block people for whatever reason they want.

Really

Yep. Really.

I'm sitting on (well, my gun safe is in my basement, directly below my butt) enough firepower to give both Clintons, Mr. Obama and Braindead agita. And what do those horses eat? I have more ammunition and ammunition making components than would gain a label of 'arsenal'. Fortunately, I'm trained as one of the 'Good Guys'. Until someone comes to take mine.

sssshhhhhhh....

Just gripe about that terrible boating accident, so 'Big Brother' doesn't know precisely where to find all your property/tools!

Took slightly longer this time.

What 'They' (ie Anti-2A Fools) refuse to learn, believe, respect, is that governments have murdered more of their own Citizenry, than ALL THE WARS have killed, COMBINED.

Our 2A has nothing to do with hunting, competitive/target/hobby shooting.

It was acknowledged (NOT 'Allowed' another common mistake) by our Founding Fathers (Who just won their 'War of Independence' against England, to establish the American Nation), as a RIGHT of every Citizen as a last-ditch/final solution option against said Govt. becoming corrupt/traitorous.

Only a Fool would surrender any of our Rights of self defense.

I'm not demanding everyone 'Keep AND BEAR arms' if THEY personally choose not to. Good luck with that!

I AM saying I REFUSE to allow any of them to mandate 'I' lose my Second Amendment!

F*ck. Them. And. Their. Insanity.

My .02 on it, forever...

I wish I could tell you some great advice but I like to keep my hands out of the political or ethical Department too complicated you know cuz everyone has their own opinions and if you don't agree with the majority then you're either with them or against them

Can't happen in USA or Europe / Australia. You see, the land there is imbued with democracy and human rights. It's in the dirt, radiating goodness into the citizens and government.

This is also what makes newcomers from foreign lands basically harmless, no matter their background, political stance or religion or the mental trauma they gained from their trip.

Perfect safety, no need for guns. Can't happen on democracy land.

If you look at the actual statistics newer immigrants commit less crime here than longer time citizens.

You've made your prejudices clear, though.

Let's talk about France then. A long string of rapes, murders, knife attacks/terrorist attacks. I'm talking about things that go into the media and make the front page. We *almost always* learn that the perpetrator was supposed not to live here, most under an "Obligation to leave the territory" because of other crimes or felony they did.

Also you can't say our medias are far-right with a bias, putting the spotlights on well chosen stories, we are talking about left leaning newspapers and prominent TV channels.

And no statistics on crime per ethnicity here, it's forbidden by the law.

I wasn't talking about France.

And while France may have some issues in that regard, they also clearly have a problem with racism and discrimination against immigrants, which may well drive at least some of the crime.

You are absolutely right on that. France has systemic racism coming from the elites. Our leaders pile foreigners together in neighboorhoods, ensuring that they can't learn the language well and keeping them poor.

Then they let dealers and criminals act freely in what is essentially guettos because they simply don't care about the large majority of honest people living there. Arabs and blacks *do not* enjoy seeing their children get hired by dealers, or staying awake late at night because of urban car and bike races. This also fuels every day joe's racism as foreigners are associated with crime in their mind.

So yes, lots of racism in France from the leaders - who label themselves as humanist of course. Fixing the problem would be as easy as mandatory prison for recidivists, instead of letting them go even after 100 times caught by the police. Do that and only hard core natural racists will stay that way.

No chance of it happening though: dividing people is an effective way to stay in power. They can end racism and destroy far-right political parties' scores ; but they won't, everything is as it should be for them.

It's easier to blame inanimate objects, and the law-abiding people who own them. As compared to going after the reasons for crime. Like poverty and ostracization by society. Mental illness and religious/political extremism too. Excessive use of pharmaceuticals, and a slew of others...

It's hard to acknowledge the societal failings that result in crime and murder.

Good thing I don't have to be blamed for what someone else did.

Guns are clearly a problem here, but of course the social issues that lead to crime or people feeling that they need to own or use guns against other or commit crime are a major part of this too. Until we actually care about and take care of everyone here, this will continue to be a critical problem.

Hey I've got a link for that.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/weighin.....es-vs-european

Banning semi-auto weapons is stupid, and few are calling for that. Nobody here needs an AR or similar weapon, though.

Can you give an example where an armed population (and not an organized army) held off and defeated a modern army without outside help?

Odd condition. Why disqualify outside help, since it's been a factor in every armed conflict in the last century?

Because the constantly repeated idea that I hear is that a well armed population is going to prevent the government from taking them over.

That's why.

If I'm fighting an army, I'll take all the outside help I can get. That's how the Vietnamese defeated the American army. How the Afghans defeated first the Soviet Empire, and then the American one. You've read history - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
For something closer to the subject, you know why the Armenian survivors of the Turkish genocide were almost all in the north? Because the stubborn northern bastards had refused to turn in their rifles. Google it - it's one of the lesser-known, but quite colorful conflicts of the time. An entertaining read.

But that's not what's being promoted in the "we will defend ourselves from the government" groups. You yourself say "I'm in favor of the peasants being armed" and then it seems you presume the armed peasants are going to overcome whatever situation is being forced on them. The idea seems to be that lone warriors and militia are going to hold off the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and so forth.

I have seen this rhetoric many times.

It's never followed by the corollary that "we, the few, the proud, (the well armed)" are going to fend them off and get armies from various nations to help us fight." It's always the Revolutionary War scenario where somehow the peasants manage to beat back the Evil King George forces with their rifles.

I have never heard anyone discuss the logistics. It's just kind of hand-wavium... "guns make us safe", "arm the peasants and we take back the government" and no one actually discusses how groups of independent militia are going to beat back the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and various law enforcement units (who are not going to toss down their weapons and join the resistance.)



So I'm curious. They come for your guns (or whatever.) Beyond "going out in a blaze of glory", what, exactly is being armed going to do for you?

If the government here decides to oppose you, It's much more likely to go down like the MOVE bombing, Waco, or Little Big Horn '73 than some fantasy of the "Triumph of the well armed but righteous populace". If they come for your guns, they're gonna get them, and you're not likely to survive that, especially if you put up a fight.

How about this solution Mel?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d.....ad/ss-BB1lwqHt

It's pretty much exactly what you're saying and it scares the F outta me cause THIS is the DOD!

That's not an actual government plan. It's one guy talking, assuming it's even true.

It looks as if United Liberty is a right wing pseudo media group that specializes in provocative scare headlines. They don't look like a credible source for anything: https://unitedliberty.com/

This sends up major red flags. Always beware of any group with "Freedom" or "Liberty" in their title. They're usually working for just the opposite. Those folks are even promoting the anti furry student walkout story.

There's also tons of racist and 2A absolutist propaganda there.

As well as anti LGBT crap.

Even if it's just propaganda and that guy was talking out his ass the fact he's with DoD and is that high up in the food chain talking like that openly is disturbing. And the fact that MSN published it at all is also interesting though there's been very little about it recently so...yeah.

I agree that that could be alarming, but I can guarantee that it's not going to happen. The whole idea is ridiculous.

As far as I can tell that site really has little or nothing to do with MSN. It looks like MSN is only hosting it.

If you look closely at it its whole purpose is to suck in right wingers with provocative headlines. The site itself doesn't even write stories. Its purpose is to sell crap on Amazon.

The first thing you should always do is check your sources.

Eh, it's an employee and not the top brass. Employees (and ex members of departments) like to pontificate for the news. You can find some of them promoting all sorts of situations, including using nukes. As a threat, this guy is a zero.

I didn't watch the video, but I do know that the FBI and other agencies are concerned about some of the freeform militia groups that are around. Some of those have very strong white nationalist and Nazi ties, and frankly THOSE people worry me a lot more.

I don't mind people owning guns, though I think there needs to be rules (that the Republicans won't shoot down...because they've stripped a lot of measures, including Red Flag laws that would do more to protect the vulnerable.)

I've already addressed the fact that an armed populace is mostly effective as a deterrent:
https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/10035027/
If the Nazis/Commies in power are not deterred, civil war results. These are NOT the lined-up-in-neat-ranks formal battles you seem to envision:
https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/10247921/
And for the cartoon capper:
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/50569299/

And I would dispute your assumption that "the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and so forth" are all traitors who would mindlessly attack their own people.

Armed populaces haven't stopped much, to be honest, when government troops are involved. Ukraine, for example, had unfettered gun ownership. They're holding their own, but it's with their own armies (not an armed population) and with the help of other nations.

Yes, we do not need Nazis in power. Agreed there. But gun ownership isn't going to change that.

And yes, armed forces would indeed fire on their own. US history shows this, from the Civil War to the Kent State riots and beyond. Particularly if the forces are shooting at them. They tend to shoot back.

Armed populaces have never in modern history been even fractionally well-armed as the American citizenry. There's literally no precedent, so it's hard to draw conclusions based on populations that don't have a tenth of the proliferation.
I for one think that loyalist US armed forces would have a hell of a hard time operating when all their bases, logistics, and families are within hostile territory, and the enemy looks just like everyone else and doesn't play by the rules. We're not even accounting for more than half of the actual trigger-pullers being likely sympathetic to the cause and quite serious about their oaths against tyranny.

There's a couple of assumptions there: You're assuming that everyone in an area is going to go along with the "armed peasants." This ain't true. If "armed peasants" took over a city/town/state, there will be members of the population that are NOT in agreement with them -- and you'd get riots, murders, all sorts of things... which is a dandy excuse for the government to step in and shoot any armed person running around.

Really, stop and think about the scenario and see how implausible it is.

The National Guard on January 6 would have shot anyone firing at them (https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2466077/dod-details-national-guard-response-to-capitol-attack/) Jan 6th is a perfect example -- they assumed that the country would support them. Ashli Babbit assumed that she and those with her could could charge into the Senate chambers
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ashli_Babbitt)

If the entire Jan 6 crowd had showed up with maximum firepower, there end result would still be the same as today... but with a lot more deaths. I see the same scenario with any group of "armed peasants" trying to prevent/take over/whatever the scenario is.

And I don't see a plausible scenario (outside the ballot box) where "armed peasants" somehow change the government's policies.

I am completely against pretty much all gun control legislation, period and full stop. There should be no magazine capacity, accessory or feature bans, restrictions on what pattern firearm you wish to own(ie: AR15, AK platform, M14/M1A/Mini-14, G3, FAL, etc), or anything like that. I advocate for no less than the repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and every state and local level 'assault weapons' and magazine capacity ban.

The only conditions that should bar anyone from owning a firearm is if someone has been convicted of a violent felony, has a violent mental illness, or has committed a proven act of domestic violence. That's it.

Everyone in the US, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, orientation, identity, ideology or any other arbitrary pigeonhole that the political extremes want to shove anyone and everyone into should have the right to own(or not own) whatever means of self(and communal) defense they deem appropriate and necessary. Yes, this includes such spicy items as suppressors and full-auto firearms.

America 2024 Is Not 1938 Germany. It's Worse.

Pff.

No matter how bad Drumpf is he's no Adolf, though he'd obviously love to be.

How about reading the article first.

Uhh, that was the first thing I did?

Did you REALLY not get my point there? The US doesn't really compare to 1938 Germany in any way.

I'm more concerned over these idiots at the campuses chanting their battle cry of "From the river to the sea" followed by chants of "Death to Zionists" ,"Bomb Jerusalem" ," Hey Hey, Ho Ho, The USA has got to go!"

The new Hitler Youth is going batshit and I'm afraid of another Krystalnacht erupting within the US.

No worries. If you'll check the yellow streak going down these pussies' backs, you'll find their spines are quite vestigial. Much too risk-averse to physically attack Jewish neighborhoods. And need I point out how much better armed today's Americans are, over the Jews of Weimar Germany?

And need I point out how much better armed today's Americans are,

Like during the summer of love when whole business blocks were looted, and burned down? Or when the mobs attacked cars in intersections, streets, people and the prime example here in Madison during the State Street Riots, where the cops were told to stand down by the Mayor saying "Those businesses have insurance!" Where 99% did NOT have 'Civil unrest and disruption' coverage, and lost everything! Where they even attacked the State Capital and attacked and brutally beat up a Democratic state senator....and Nothing was done.

I'll guarantee you that the idea of attacking Jewish neighborhoods is the farthest thing from any of the pro Palestinian demonstrator's minds. You're the one who thought of this, not them. Sorry if that disappoints you in your fantasies of civil unrest and justification for gun use.

On the oher hand, a lot of the demonstrators are being extremely brave as they are being attacked by violent police. It's the cops that are inflaming this, as is usually the case.

These days, I'm not so sure of that.

I have an aunt who is Jewish, and she is flat-out scared to be out alone in public because of potential retaliation.

My mother bought her a Star of David pendant and showed it to my older sister when they were eating in a restaurant with my niece. Said niece, who has pro-Palestinian leanings, saw the pendant and started screaming at my mother in the middle of a crowded restaurant about even daring to show that symbol in her presence. This turned into a public tirade that continued until she was escorted out of the restaurant.

If reactions toward Jewish people and the symbols of their faith are that visceral and emotionally driven, we're not far from Jewish people being attacked because of it. I've already seen video of someone who looks like they're an Orthodox Jew being barred from simply walking between campus buildings by protestors, being yelled at in that creepy "leader, follower" cadence I've seen all too often. This isn't a polite, respectful demonstration. While I think the possibility of a protest turning violent and a Jewish neighborhood getting attacked is remote, I think one of the major reasons why is because of the prevalence of firearms in this country.

While I'm sick and tired of all the bloodshed going on over there and think that we should be doing all we can to promote peace instead of getting involved militarily, we also need to do all we can to promote that peace at home. There's a line between believing what the Israeli government is doing is wrong and outright antisemitism, and some of these actions are toeing right on that line.

Jumping Jeebus, talk about misdirected anger!

I spent the better part of last night dealing with an antisemitic troll here. They're suspended now. Permanently.

I can totally understand Jewish people being paranoid right now, but Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim people are getting it even worse. Fuck this war, and fuck all bigots and oppressors.

The hate against all of these people around the world is up. And the comment above is addressing the situation of these people in the US specifically, but it applies to everywhere.

Very few of the protesters demonstrating for Palestinian freedom are saying anything antisemitic. Most of them are against that, and are completely peaceful. A lot of the people leading these protests are Jewish, as a matter of fact. The stories of antisemitism at protests are seriously overhyped in right wing and corporate media.

The phrase "From the river to the sea" is understandably controversial, but it's important to note that it was actually originally coined and used by Israelis, and for most of the people demonstrating here the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" just means that the Palestinians have the same right to be free that the Israelis do. Meanwhile, Palestinians have actually been attacked and killed by violent pro Zionists, and peaceful protests are being shut down. Pro Palestinian students and professors are being booted from institutions, and many pro Palestinian speakers, authors, and students are being censored.

Being pro Palestinian, antizionist, or against the actions of the Israeli government doesn't automatically make anyone Antisemitic.

On the other hand, there are a lot of cops shutting down peaceful protests with violence when that's not necessary at all. Some 500 protesters, almost al of whom are completely peaceful, have been arrested this week at campuses across the country. As a counterexample, there's a peaceful protest that's been going on for about a month at Sproul Plaza in Berkeley. No antisemitism, a multiracial and multidenominational group of protesters, no violence, and no cops.