Dating app Bumble has banned photos showing lonely hearts holding a gun . . .
“Online behavior can both mirror and predict how people treat each other in the real world,” their statement proclaims. “As mass shootings continue to devastate communities across the country, it’s time to state unequivocally that gun violence is not in line with our values, nor do these weapons belong on Bumble.”
Since when does a picture of an American holding a gun equal promoting mass murder? If anything, it’s the exact opposite. Or, alternatively, someone having fun exercising their natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, signaling potential mates that they like guns.
After the Newtown school shooting I was physically threatened by a couple of belligerent Brown University professors (of all people). But there wasn’t any of this Bumbling corporate anti-gun virtue signalling (e.g., Delta, United Airlines, Enterprise, MetLife, etc.).
Has the Florida spree killing unleashed a different sort of anti-gun rights backlash? Do you hear that gravel-voiced movie trailer guy saying “this time it’s personal”? Are The People of the Gun losing ground in the War on Guns? Are Guns are on the same path to oblivion as cigarettes, soda?
Oh, and BTW: military or law enforcement Bumble users can still post images of themselves with firearms — as long as they’re in uniform. Because that kind of “gun culture” is OK with the Austin-based antis.
Oscars viewership down, Google searches for how to join NRA up.
Facebook usage down, Facebook doubles down on promoting social justice
Face Book has lost market share as the younger generation abandons it to insta-chat or some such, leaving the primary membership as older people posting pics of their kids, grandkids, and latest vacation, i.e., all that old fogey stuff.
Just sent in my newest NRA membership yesterday. Winning?!? Beats the hell out of me. Not in Illinois…😩😖😧
Given the NRA’s anti gun pro-fudd history, does that mean both sides are losing?
Ah. So a firearm is ok with them as long as you are employed by the government.
Yknow, when we were dating, I took my future wife to a shooting range and taught her to fire an M1 Carbine. She loved those 30-round magazines so much I soon purchased her Ruger 10/22 so she could blast as much as she wanted without breaking my wallet.
If any of you single folk out there are looking for love – go to a gun show. Your future spouse should be someone who you’ll find at a show ALONE because they love guns, not because they were dragged there by someone else.
(thinks this over for a moment)
On the other hand – if you take your date to a gun show and she:
1. Gets excited at the idea.
2. Wanders off in her own to look around as you are examining a new gun.
3. You find her later caressing a new gun that caught her eye on her own.
Hopefully, the only gun she would be caressing would be mine. Now, her caressing another firearm is a different thing entirely. 😀
Guns are becoming the “g word.” Not to be shown or discussed unless the context is how to ban them.
Of note, it is not that we as a society or all people have decided to mentally expunge the concept of firearms from collective thought. It is instead the self-appointed gatekeepers that have decided for us what we should do or think.
The question is, will everyone submit, or rebel?
Will they fight for what is inalienably theirs or slip quietly into complete tyranny. That is the question…
What’s different is the TDS has caused them all to flip full retard and go 100% in. Which is great.
They can’t help but wear their partisanship on their sleeves and the Streisand effect is real so the next few months maybe years will see an epic quickening.
Both sides are winning because the separation needed to keep them from killing each other is coming up faster than ever before. Or, both sides are losing because TPTB will seek to maintain geographic unity at the expense of cultural no matter how high the bodies stack.
“Both sides are winning because the separation needed to keep them from killing each other is coming up faster than ever before. Or, both sides are losing because…”
The wedge is being driven, the polarization is nearly complete.
When the explosion happens, it will happen *fast*…
Good! And, I don’t write that lightly. If it doesn’t come to that, then this erosion of individual liberty will be complete in a generation or two.
The only way to stop this insanity bus is for it crash before its destination.
Choose the tree or the cliff.
What do your acronyms mean?
Trump Derangement Syndrome
The Powers That Be i.e. the deranged
Don’t be too upset about getting yelled at by college professors and students. They’re totally detached from reality.
As for the extreme push were saying it’s easy to explain to degree. This was a massive massive failure by the government. To them the government is there God and religion. To them the government is literally God to them. So to see the government as being fallible is totally unacceptable to them. So they react in an extreme manner. Also part of this is the Trump derangment syndrome in full force.
But we have known for years that their end goal is the systematic banning and confiscation of all privately held firearms; a complete and total ban with no grandfathering. They also feel that the government should round up and execute anyone who opposes. What they really want deep down is the systematic extermination of gun owners and by extension every single Republican and conservative. To them the systematic extermination of over half the country; if they have to start dropping nuclear weapons on United States soil against United States citizens to kill us all that is an acceptable action. They want a totalitarian dictatorship. And if they have to kill 200 million people to do what? Acceptable for Utopia. At that point government is illegitimate and must be overthrown. Except them. I can imagine most college professors, a lot of college students, And the hosts of MSNBC and CNN popping champagne. As the United States government literally nuclear holocaust its own people so long as there are the “right people” to kill.
It’s not the culture, it’s the bots.
Yes. And I don’t like the idea of being told what to do by a bot (even traffic lights get under my skin a bit).
Are there any techies out there who can tell us: can these companies not screen their Customer Feedback comments for bots and ignore them accordingly?
Every one of Little Mikey’s trolls ca n make themselves look like 10,000 when they have nothing better to do than sit on the computer all day in their mom’s basement.
WTF is “Bumble” and why do I give two shits about it?
First I’ve heard of it as well. A quick Wikipedia search suggests it’s a superficial dating app which in the case of heterosexual matches, the woman is the only party authorized to make first contact. You have to log in with your Facebook account. Honestly, the Wikipedia article makes it sound absolutely dreadful.
So it’s a dating site for feminazis and their soy boys. Good to know.
Don’t feel bad. Last I remember bumble was associated with being awkward or confused.
Now somehow the word is tied to some stupid dating app. Like tinder. That used to be what was used to start a fire. Now its another dating app. You would think that a search for golly would bring up gay dating sites since Gomer Pyle was gay but no they have not co-opted that one yet.
No one. These arguments are a collective drain on society. What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to get? Everyone’s time money and energy is wasted on what should have never been an argument.
Quidquid latine dictim sit altum videteur.
Who defines culture?
A disparate, fragmented and poorly organized population of gun owners & the NRA…
Or the US Government, Mainstream Media, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood.
CTStooge hits a home run!
Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and traditional mainstream media are firmly entrenched gun-grabbers. Their content will reflect that.
The pendulum swings to and fro, to and fro. As long as the pendulum continues to swing, winning and losing are meaningless constructs. Once the pendulum stops, then we will know who won and who lost.
At the end of the day, the people of the gun will have all but bolt action rifles in the closet. collecting dust, hidden away or have turned them in to the police department. That’s pretty much necessary before they can be rounded up. But I don’t see that happening in our life times.
First of all, who the heck believes this: “As mass shootings continue to devastate communities across the country…”
violent crime as a whole is actually down and almost EVERY major mass shooting in the past decade has been shown to be a false flag OR Islamic terror!
Second of all, in certain cities, the NRA is losing, but in the vast wide open spaces, the NRA is winning.
“… in certain cities, the NRA is losing, but in the vast wide open spaces, the NRA is winning.”
Square miles do not win politics or culture wars. Headcount and dollars win politics and culture wars.
The problem: California, Cook County Illinois, the Boston-Washington D.C. megalopolis, and the rest of the urban centers have a HUGE headcount and a LOT of dollars. The only safe way that we can retain gun rights for the foreseeable future is to literally out populate those regions that I listed in my previous sentence.
I get it. You get it. The Founders got it. That deep understanding of culture is exactly why they wrote the 2nd Amendment precisely the way they did; because the collective insanity of the nitwits who pile up in big cities is only slightly younger than big cities themselves. My point is, they are all gathered up, we are all spread out. We do the work, make the food, understand the cycle, they all sit at home and read their social media and couldn’t tell half about where their organic, vegan, latte comes from. All we would need is a couple of weeks cutting trenches through roadways and we could starve the whole bleeping lot of them.
“Square miles do not win politics or culture wars.”
The ‘square miles’ are where the *food* comes from. And it arrives via truck.
Starting to get the idea on how we teach the big cities some manners?
“Square miles don’t win wars”….
Please let me know the last time someone successfully invaded Russia.
“Please let me know the last time someone successfully invaded Russia.”
*Warning* NASTY pictures of rotting flesh on living people…
You assume anybody cares about these lowlives. In Russia, they are left to die in the gutter where they belong.
They’re better at sounding like they’re winning just because they have MSM enablers and photogenic idiots to show off but I think our side is actually the one gaining ground.
Problem solved 🙂
“You don’t need a gun because the police will ‘protect’ you.” is deader than Joe Biden’s last lonely brain cell.
That leaves the anti-gun cult with two offerings:
1. “You should defend yourself.”
2. “You should meekly allow yourself to be slaughtered.”
1 destroys the narrative.
2 destroys the movement.
I’ve got to admit I’m curious about the overlap between the “F the police” crowd and the “only military and police need guns” crowd.
I sit firmly in the ‘fuck the police’ crowd, having been assaulted and abused by cops in the past. An unrestrained and unaccountable police force is detrimental to a free society. We are better off without police.
Illustrated by thins link.
It’s called “cognitive dissonence”.
I’ve known Black people in Apartheid Chicago who SIMULTANEOUSLY:
* Believed (with substantial justification) that the Chicago PD was shot through with racists, criminals and sociopaths.
* Supported Chicago’s handgun ban that effectively limited ownership to the aforementioned racists, criminals and sociopaths.
* ILLEGALLY owned handguns.
I blame the so-called public “schools”.
If you spend 12 years and millions of dollars teaching people to be stupid, nobody should be surprised at a high “success” rate in that endeavor.
History shows that an ignorant, disarmed populace make better serfs and slaves.
Something is starting to percolate in my (admittedly small) brain…
At one time, it was acceptable in America to vilify gays, other races, other people that were different from *you*.
but we overcame that. We became inclusive, not exclusive.
See where this line of thought is leading?
We need to hammer home the bigoted, exclusionary nature of that behavior and how it is unacceptable.
And how we refuse to tolerate that hatred…
In fact, it sounds a whole lot like…
Your point would be valid if the left was true to their STATED principles. The only true, consistent principle they have is that they should have more power. That which furthers this goal is “good.” That which stands in the way is “bad” (e.g., the US Constitution, individual civil liberty). You cannot accuse them of intolerance because only they decide who is worthy of tolerance. And if you stand in their way, sooner or later they will bring naked force to bear.
Look what just popped up in ‘Reason’ :
“Vilifying Gun Owners Doesn’t Lead to a Better Society”
“Progressives push their luck with their totalitarian insistence that everybody is with them or against them on guns and so much else.”
Also at Reason. Students at Lewis & Clark College disrupt talk by Christina Hoff Summers because the 1st Amendment only supports their views.
From the ‘New York Times’ :
“How Progressives Win the Culture War”
“The people pushing for gun restrictions have basically done the exact opposite of what I thought was wise. Instead of depolarizing the issue they have massively polarized it. The students from Parkland are being assisted by all the usual hyper-polarizing left-wing groups: Planned Parenthood, Move On and the Women’s March. The rhetoric has been extreme. Marco Rubio has been likened to a mass murderer while the N.R.A. has been called a terrorist organization.”
“Yet I have to admit that something bigger is going on. It could be that progressives understood something I didn’t. It could be that you can win more important victories through an aggressive cultural crusade than you can through legislation. Progressives could be on the verge of delegitimizing their foes, on guns but also much else, rendering them untouchable for anybody who wants to stay in polite society. That would produce social changes far vaster than limiting assault rifles.”
“Second, progressives are getting better and more aggressive at silencing dissenting behavior. All sorts of formerly legitimate opinions have now been deemed beyond the pale on elite campuses. Speakers have been disinvited and careers destroyed. The boundaries are being redrawn across society.”
Ahh, but when “polite society” no longer contains the will for self-defense, it will not be polite at all.
The real problem with the left is that their ideals aren’t new. Societies since the beginning have, with boring regularity, devolved into what this “new generation” of leftists are screaming for. Violence against those who disagree is demonstrably leftist/statist and always has been. The fact that we have actual film footage of leftists from around the world goose stepping their way toward democide in literally dozens of countries is the exact reason that history education has become so vacuous in the U.S. Virtually ALL wealthy societies have become dangerous places for women and children, due to the collective insanity of wealthy people so detached from how they became wealthy(i’m not talking about millionaires, I’m just talking about the average American). The Founders were well aware of this defect of humanity; hence the plain statement that we must be prepared to defend ourselves. It’s not complicated, subtle, nuanced, or surprising. It’s quite predictable, and for the first time, may actually go in favor of Liberty, because we outnumber them in regards to arms and the knowledge of how to use them.
However, the NYT article concludes :
“Conservatives have zero cultural power, but they have immense political power. Even today, voters trust Republicans on the gun issue more than Democrats. If you exile 40 percent of the country from respectable society they will mount a political backlash that will make Donald Trump look like Adlai Stevenson.”
So, we have that going for us… 😉
Ability to know the difference between ‘spree killing’ and ‘mass killing’. Zero.
GET IT RIGHT FARAGO!
Yes, the trend is against guns. It does not help that the NRA has lost its focus, campaigning against net neutrality of all things. Wayne is a poor spokesperson. Dana is better, Collion better still.
Instead of just screaming, how about delivered in a mournful tone, something along the lines of:
“You think we should have an assault weapons ban? I understand your worry, but have you checked the definition in the current bill? The shotgun your granddaddy used to hunt dove is now an assault weapon. The 10/22 your dad used to teach you to shoot is an assault weapon. The Glock pistol you bought to keep your family safe is now an assault weapon.
“The Democratic party removed from their platform the long-standing plank defending the right to keep and bear arms. Hillary said gun confiscation is worth considering.
“Have you considered that the NRA might not be lying when we said they want to take your guns away? Perhaps they are the last hope that confiscation does not happen.”
Of course Wayne is a terrible spokesperson. Anyone who opposes gun rights is a terrible spokesperson for gun rights.
He is also a terrible spokesperson because he looks like an undertaker from a low-budget horror film. No, I’m wrong. Actually, he reminds me of Lon Chaney in ‘Phantom of the Opera.’
Bumble; facilitator of countless abusive relationships
No different than blaming gun stores, makers, or owners for the acts of others
“Yes, the trend is against guns. It does not help that the NRA has lost its focus, campaigning against net neutrality of all things.”
Losing net neutrality would allow the overlords of cyberspace to cut off the NRA signal or any other viewpoint they don’t like.
The minute we conceded that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t plainly mean, “shall not be infringed,” we lost. The only way back is… You guessed it, “shall not be infringed.” Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Both sides are losing. We aren’t coming together on this issue. We are further dividing. In the long game, gun control proponents are winning given demographic trends and the views of most younger folk. The cultural shift is going to be increasingly anti-gun going forward, especially if the NRA continues to be the only dominant force significantly representing gun owners. People like Dana Loesch are divisive and repulsive for most moderate or left leaning Americans and seemingly only cater to the NRA’s existing base. The fear mongering and talks of civil war and what not isn’t going to win over people in the center and likely causes them to lose support among many of their more moderate-right supporters. It certainly doesn’t help at all that the NRA keeps getting its fingers in issues unrelated to the 2nd Amendment.
Your statement is 100% flat earth,
Most moderates APPROVE of the NRA. I’m a pltocal moderate and approve of NRAas the majority of Americans do
NRA has 58% approvals in national gallup polls
And Dana Loesch is not repulsive. She is pointing out every gun control group support total bans. That is not untrue at all
How is it flat earth?
Where’s the data on your “most moderate” and “majority of Americans” approve of the NRA claims? Your 58% number appears to be from 2015 from what I am seeing. Some recent polling suggests that slightly more than 50% of voter straight up think the NRA is bad for the country, and other polls reported by NPR and Quinnipiac indicate 67-72% of Americans support a new assault weapons ban. 75% think gun laws should be stricter. 73% are for limiting magazines to 10 rounds. 82% support raising the legal age to purchase guns from 18 to 21.
Every gun control group supports total bans? That is ridiculous. I am sure a lot of people do, but there are many groups that clearly call for some restrictions but not outright bans. The American Hunters and Shooters Association is one of the most obvious of those groups. They clearly support limited gun ownership. While many groups call for undue restrictions, I can’t think of any that explicitly call for banning all guns, nor would most American support that.
and Hitlery had a 98% chance of winning the election.
Remember the whole thing about a vocal minority.
A few loud racists that also happen to be Trump supporters giving the Left ammunition to use to shut down any dialog with normal Trump supporters.
It’s important that you recognize this as a weakness. Instead of connecting these arguments to every liberal you see, realize they may have come from a very vocal minority. Use it as an opportunity to turn them. Take them shooting, let them get bitten by the bug, and they’ll understand how ridiculous many of the arguments are.
As others have pointed out the anti’s use of bullshit has caused a backlash and NRA memberships would seem to be on the rise. Over time the corporate stuff will level out.
That said the Marketwatch article has A LOT of bullshit in it. Cigarette smoking has indeed been on the decline for a number of reasons most of which involve people figuring out how bad they are for you. However the soda thing is… well I call BS.
Soda sales hit a 30 year low… great, tons of things hit lows in 2015, including IBM stock, and the thing that many had in common was that they were seen at the time as indicators of an economy that was in trouble. Other things were significantly higher. The U6 number was 10.8% whereas now it’s about 8.1%.
Further, look at the trends longer than a few days. Coca Cola stock, five year history, up. The same is true of Cott Corporation (up significantly), PepsiCo (up significantly), Dr. Pepper Snapple Group (up significantly), National Beverage Corp (up significantly). The only major soda company that doing “poorly” as far as I can tell is Jones Soda Group. Soda ain’t on the path to oblivion, in fact it’s the rising and largest contributor to diabetes which is rising at a staggering rate in the US population (up ~180% from Y2K to 2012, up 251% Y2K to present).
So far as I can tell, while soda sales may have had a slump in 2015 there are a ton of possible reasons for that and the market is “healthy” (pardon that terrible pun) for the soft drink industry. MarketWatch is full of shit when they predict doom for this industry. I assume them to be about as correct on guns.
Austin can keep weird, but without TTAG (and a barbecue place [F – SXSW]) they ain’t sh_t.
So, culture war? Why F with it when you can do the real thing?
I would say the Right has the better arguments, the Left has control of the communication channels. Tech hugely multiplies the power of individuals, but it’s a double edged sword. A single social media user can have his or her opinion read by millions but at the same time a single individual can decide for millions what is acceptable to say. The Leftists have a stranglehold on a few social media companies so it just seems like they are winning.
I think this state of affairs has about run it’s course. I suspect the politicians on the Right will either act to regulate these few companies a la Paul Nehlen (https://www.electnehlen.com/shallnotcensor) or they could do something like collectively jump on another platform like Gab.ai. If all in office Republicans, Trump included, all switched to a new platform all the reporters and lobbyists would have to move over there to follow them and the hoi polloi would follow.
Switching platforms is a temporary solution. Social media is inherently monolithic when developed. They should be treated just like any other utility.
Saw a link earlier (can’t recall where) that echoed that sentiment.
It may be starting to get some legs…
I think regulation is the way to go myself. Even guys like Ted Cruz are talking about government intervention, though Paul Nehlen is way in front of it. Something is going to have to happen soon or the right is going to be completely neutered and at a huge disadvantage come the mid-terms.
Throwing the exercise of other rights under to bus to save one is not the solution. It is a gigantic mistake. Not to mention, it is immoral. That’s something I would expect a former or current commie/socialist to suggest.
I’m an ex-libertarian. America as the founders intended is gone and we need to wake up that the State is going to be used against us if we don’t control it. There is no small government, NAP option that does not require a revolution / illiberal purge of leftists. When that time comes sign me up, but until then it’s the America we have. If we want something even as basic as a constitutional freedom we have to collectivize using groups like the NRA to pressure the State or control it directly.
Gun ownership used to be very different. It used to not be as private and confidential.
The gun ban lobby knows this which is why it stages as many public events such as the “children’s crusade” because that is not a venue where supporters of the bill of rights can compete.
Just look at Sandy Hook, the attempt to vilify gun owners resulted in less public backlash, but a backlash nonetheless.
Send money to NRA and if you like to GOA. Get family members to sign up
“Oh, and BTW: military or law enforcement Bumble users can still post images of themselves with firearms — as long as they’re in uniform.”
Way to go, Bumble. Way to speak serf to power.
Dating app Bumble has banned photos showing lonely hearts holding a gun . . .
The name says it all.
Bumble has been an SJW app from the beginning. I’m much more surprised by the moves made by mainstream corporations like Delta, etc. Bloomberg’s minions must have had an action plan all worked out, just waiting for the next mass shooting.
Politicians in both parties, the extremely wealthy and lobbyists are winning.
Anti-gunners are winning too; they get to have a feels-trip, signal their virtue, pretend to be powerful. They can act angry that there isn’t a new federal AWB, but what does it really cost them? Nothing. As most of us here know our guns don’t make us violent criminals.
There are two Americas. They are diametrically opposed in their vision of what America should be. There is no grounds for compromise because each is convinced they are completely correct and the other is completely wrong. One must and will eventually exterminate the other. There’s no choice for any individual but to understand which side they are on and resolve to either submit or fight. Your enemy intends to kill you. We are already beyond a mere “culture war”.
Who’s winning? My guess is the children. With all the in-fighting between the 2nd Amender’s and the NRA and the outrage over a cheap plastic item (bump-stocks) by these same 2nd Amender’s, I’d say the MSM-backed children of CNN and Jimmy Kimmel are ahead of the game. If Oprah wins in 2020 you’ll just have yourselves to blame.
So, are you saying that if they are “given” bump stocks that they will stop? That’s ludicrous.
“If Oprah wins in 2020 you’ll just have yourselves to blame.”
More like people that don’t know their unalienable individual rights from a hole in the ground and aren’t willing to fight for their exercise.. Uh… You perhaps?
After letting things simmer a bit, I think now it is clear you’ve had your day. There was always to be a “tipping point”, and now you have it. Finally.
17 more dead because of the cowboy culture that prides itself in machismo of the gun. (What, 56 in Las Vegas wasn’t enough for you?) One can only hope that this is the last of it (not ruddy likely, but hope springs eternal). You refused common sense at the legislative level, now your retailers are imposing morality on you. The wave is inexorable.
When the proverbial pendulum swings too far in a direction, there comes a day when it finds the other extreme. We wanted you to come along, and make things right for all, but your little chippie from the NRA shows just how radical and extreme all the law-abiding gun owners actually are.
Oh yeah? Who’s gonna take all our guns, big boy? You?
Oh, do be serious for a moment.
Confiscation is only a bleeding last resort. Making guns so difficult to obtain, maintain and use can be quite effective. I rather dearly love the idea of a law that instantly makes the use of a gun except under extraordinary circumstances illegal. Such a law would wittingly turn millions of “law abiding” gun owners into felons.
Have you even considered the result of nationally adopting the “reasonable need” standard of several localities? Those protocols were not undone by the high court. Seems a bit of quite rational common sense gun control.
What do you plan to do when you have tens of millions of new felons, who are armed, won’t obey, and further, let’s say they just give up, where are you going to put them? The US prison population is already bloated. So where do you plan to put everyone? Camps? Do you think that’s going to go over easily?
As you asked, I would be right sneaky about it. Publicize the new laws, announce that anyone who uses a gun in a manner not prescribed is subject to immediate arrest, regardless of circumstance. One of the laws would make it illegal to transport a firearm on any road or street not specifically permitted (such as direct, no deviation, transportation to or from a gun range or gunsmith), subject to arrest, not a ticket. I would make it probable cause to search any vehicle related to any contact between police and the public. The goal would be to inject, what was it called…fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding if and when a gun owner might come in contact with police while in possession of a firearm.
However, in order to freeze people such as yourself, I would also issue random threats to mount direct confiscation campaigns. Let you people live under constant concern over goons kicking in the front door, all the while using the most indirect methods of marginalizing the usefulness or desirability to own and possess guns. I believe Senator Feinstein has already intorduced a bill to raise taxes on new purchases of firearms and ammunition by 50%. That could one day be converted to a 50% tax on the purchase price, versus an excise tax.
There are so many avenues available, but you just keep an eye out for the SWAT teams mate. Meanwhile, we will be about the business of protecting the public.
“So where do you plan to put everyone?”
History already tells us where; in ditches. That is the real result of gun control… Millions of people; men, women, and children dead in ditches.
“Millions of people; men, women, and children, dead in ditches.”
Not really necessary atall. Look at Dick’s, Walmart, others. Use a bit of imagination, and think of where it could lead, or be led.
“Oh, do be serious for a moment.”
You first. At least give it the ol’ “college try”. We’ll wait.
“Not really necessary atall. Look at Dick’s, Walmart, others. Use a bit of imagination, and think of where it could lead, or be led.”
You are being willfully or unintentionally ignorant of history. Disarming the people leads to government extermination of people. That is the endpoint. There is no utility arguing it with me. You would be arguing against historical facts.
“Disarming the people leads to government extermination of people. That is the endpoint. There is no utility arguing it with me. You would be arguing against historical facts.”
Have a look at this historical fact: Sweden, UK, Norway, France, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austria, Czech, Belgium, Denmark; essentially NATO, all have restrictive gun controls. Do you see any of those governments exterminating their citizenry? All the nations listed are essentially “socialist”, or “socialistic”. Where are the government agents rounding up political undesirables? Where is the slaughter?
Gun control does not inexorably result in autocratic government. Don’t argue with me. You will be arguing against fact and history.
“Not really necessary atall. Look at Dick’s, Walmart, others. Use a bit of imagination, and think of where it could lead, or be led.“
😂 Did you just propose the government use the Jade Helm conspiracy to round up everyone and put them in Walmart!?!?!? 😂😂😂
Will you admit your error when crime goes up, everywhere and in every category, just like it has everywhere guns have been banned? Are you really so misinformed to not know that that’s what has happened? Are you so mentally degraded as to think it won’t happen here? You do realize that the U.S. is not in the top 10 on the list of countries with people killed in mass shooting per capita, right? Indeed, do get serious: will you change your tune when crime goes up after a gun ban? Crime will go up until the greatest criminal is the State, then they’ll be nothing left for private citizens to kill each other over. It’s not a fiction, it’s demonstrable fact. Study some ACTUAL history, please!
“You do realize that the U.S. is not in the top 10 on the list of countries with people killed in mass shooting per capita, right?”
Mass shootings are a subset of gun crime, a subset of violent crime. Here is some fact for you:
the US is 35th in the world for overall crime; the entirety of Europe falls below the US. Europe has serious gun control; the US does not. (https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp)
Overall crime (which is what you are protecting yourself against, right?) may go up a bit immediately after installing serious gun controls, but the rise is not epidemic (as you seem to believe). If it were otherwise, Europe should be essentially lawless, each nation ranking much above the US.
Mexico has more violent crime than the U.S..
You are correct. On the other hand, I rather thought Americans considered themselves a majority European heritage nation. So it is I point to the success of similar nations.
As to Mexico itself, the people are largely opposed to guns in private hands (they have seen what that leads to). When Mexicans (who also have a bit of European heritage) come to the US, they bring their abhorrence of firearms with them. Sad that American culture need be reordered by what you might call a third world nation.
And they have also seen that laws did jack shit to keep guns out of the hands of the cartels.
After the Newtown school shooting I was physically threatened by a couple of belligerent Brown University professors (of all people).
OMG! I better watch out when I’m at East Side Marketplace or Whole Foods, Providence.
A friend and I stopped at Starbucks on the way home from the rifle range, not too long after Columbine. As usual, I was wearing an NRA ballcap. The slacker behind the counter says, “It must take a lot of guts to wear that cap THESE days.” I replied, “Who’s going to make me take it off?”
About ten years ago, I was in a Lakewood, Ohio McDonald’s eating lunch, again wearing my NRA ballcap. An elderly cleaner began berating me for wearing the cap and declaring that the NRA should be “banned”. I replied that the last time organizations started getting banned, we somehow misplaced 6,000,000 Jews. His reply? He “wasn’t so sure that was such a BAD thing.”
What do you plan to do when you have tens of millions of new felons, who are armed, won’t obey, and further, let’s say they just give up, where are you going to put them? The US prison population is already bloated. So where do you plan to put everyone? Camps?
Haven’t you read between the lines? The end goal is for the U.S. to become one giant, coast to coast prison.
It’s the perfect world for leftists…
Neither side, we both seem to be drifting away from each other. Either to freedom or to slavery.
It seems to me that a photo including a firearm would trigger an automatic rejection by the majority of Bumble users and thus be a net plus for the typical loser using this platform.
If you go home with someone and they don’t have any guns in their house, don’t fuck them.
I met my wife a few years ago on Tinder. One of my explicit strategies was “any girl with a pic of her shooting gets an automatic like”. Imagine if Tinder had implemented a policy like this. I can’t say for sure I would have met my wife as a result.
Now imagine the arrogance of these corporate overlords to engage in a social engineering project of this scale. Just how “free” are we if these cowards and panty-wetters can tinker with trajectories of our lives like that?
Sorry if I’m repeating someone but their is no logic to this.
Beyond the fact this does nothing to “reduce gun..[anything].” they are now forcing gun owners to “hide” from potential “dates” that may fear/loath guns.
What’s going to happen when ‘A’ hooks up with ‘B’ (who fears guns) and finds out ‘A’ packing a concealed weapon and enjoys weekly trips to the range?
You must be joking.
You seriously believe that at some point in the recognizable future all the governments in Europe will begin arresting their citizens and “leaving them in ditches”, dead?
The citizens of Europe thought the same thing about Germany at one time. 😉
You truly propose to hang your claim on a one-off? (No, Stalin’s Russia was not Europe)
Regardless, the fact remains that European crime rates are uniformly lower than the US, yet it is the US where the cowboys claim that, what is it, 300 million guns are in circulation? Why not sit back and ponder that one a bit?
Better, let me break it down. Europe has fewer guns in the hands of the public, and has a lower overall crime rate. The US has guns everywhere, and a crime rate that is greater than any European country. Seeing a bit of a trend here?
If America is so violent that even 300 million privately held guns cannot contain the violence, isn’t high time you put your efforts into creating a less violent culture? Notwithstanding the decline in crime since 1993, the rate for the US is abominable compared to a more organized, more satisfied Europe.
Perhaps you simply like the notion of settling your disputes with a gun.
Did not read. You are wasting your time and I am wasting mine.
You chose to read and reply.
I understand how it is you are embarrassed by the fact that in all the other highly developed nations, life without massive amounts of firearms awash in the population is not only tolerable, but desirable.