The Second Amendment

I missed the whole Gamergate thing. I tried reading up on it when you guys brought her up in order to see what the deal was ... but 99.9999% of articles make her out to be some misunderstood angel from the heavens being picked on by the nasty gaming community. I figured she had to say something incredibly stupid/inflamatory to get some kind of response because she sounds like a nobody to me.

There was one article thankfully that highlighted some of the lulzy stuff she had to say.

Anyways, BACK TO THE GUNZ.
 
Now i'm curious, how many fights actually happen here? o.o The way you people talk sometimes, it's SUPER common. Meanwhile I'm sorta in this corner like "I haven't seen a fight yet DX"

It's been a while since I've learned so much from a forum before. Most people I used to deal with don't want to learn, add things, refute even. Just say what they say, and then bully you if they think you're wrong without giving any reason as to why. That doesn't happen here too often (At least the places i'm at here) Shockingly, even a few people here who disagree with me like 99% of everything still has actual discussion and learning in between. It's the first time I've actually fully understood opposing sides because it's the first time it's ever been actually explained to me. Amazingly for me, it almost feels that here, agreeing or disagreeing doesn't matter, what matters is the understanding of the two sides. @Kaga-kun is notable there. We are on like COMPLETELY different sides of the spectrum about what seems like most things XD But I've learned probably more from her than I have anybody online (On forums anyway) I originally quit forums because I just quit learning things. It was taxing. I don't regret it because I met and made friends with some REALLY amazing people, but yeah. Despite all that, people always predict a fight. It's really awkward DX


Windsong said:
because they were being 'harassed' online after their respected bullshitting.
Click to expand...
@Decimate
And by "harassed" he means criticized and refuted by people. But instead of having conversation and talking about the issue, she just files it under harassment. (She also lies and makes things up. An example is hitman, she played the game herself and killed these woman NPC's, dragged their bodies around, and then threw them in a box to hide. And said that the game teaches you to treat woman like objects to just be dragged/pushed around and then thrown away.
Problem? You are punished for doing so in the game, and (At least at the time) nobody was killing them or dragging them around, they were sneaking by them unnoticed for the best score because they were just innocent people who just happened to be there.

ALSO, Anita started a kickstarter which promised a handful of video's to be released. over a year later, I don't think that she's even half way done. She says that each video was allot of money of feminist research In the thousands if I remember right) Which is interesting because it cost like 110 dollars to prove her wrong (A game store by me are selling xbox 360's for 100 dollars, and hitman absolution for 10 or so. So play through hitman, and you find that she's lying (Or at the very least dishonest)

Modern day feminist/SJW's these days like to live in echo chambers. Only listen to them self. And if you're in the group, and have just one tiny disagreement, then you're demonized by the rest. Which is starting to happen recently, these groups within turning on each other. Some of them who had a following left it and apologized for the toxicity they caused. You would think that these people may grow up one day, but I don't know about that >.<
 
I don't understand why Americans want gun control. It wouldn't ban guns, it would make it harder to get guns. Gun control wouldn't destroy the Second Amendment and make it invalid. God it isn't that hard to think for a second.

But, then again, many Americans are planning to vote for Trump - a horrible presidential candidate by the way.

America has been fucked for a long time and it's keeps getting worst. Racism to mass shootings, America - "THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE FUCKING WORLD" - still deals with this shit more than any other country. I am not saying that it isn't there, but it happens more in America than any where else.

(If don't know it about now, I really don't like America)
 
Last edited:
supernicenow said:
I don't understand why Americans want gun control. It wouldn't ban guns, it would make it harder to get guns. Gun control wouldn't destroy the Second Amendment and make it invalid. God it isn't that hard to think for a second.

But, then again, many Americans are planning to vote for Trump - a horrible presidential candidate by the way.

America has been fucked for a long time and it's keeps getting worst. Racism to mass shootings, America - "THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE FUCKING WORLD" - still deals with this shit more than any other country. I am not saying that it isn't there, but it happens more in America than any where else.

(If don't know it about now, I really don't like America)
Click to expand...
NOTE: This is just my opinion. I don't have any facts or figures to back it up like some of the other stuff.

The reason why I think America deals with this shit more than anyone else is because of sensationalism in the media and the breakdown of the community structure.

The desire for fame/infamy has been noted among school shooters such as in the Columbine Massacre in 1999. They were so sure they were going to be famous they even mandated that they wanted Steven Spielberg to direct their movie when it came out. Creepily enough, they do seem to have a murder cult of fanboys if the internet and copy cat shootings/killings admiring them is anything to judge.

In my opinion, the news media plays right into their hands. Everybody who so much as walked past them in the grocery aisle once is interviewed for information and the victims unless they did anything notable kind of slide into the background. Like the Oregon killings from last week. Can anyone actually name a victim outside of Chris Mentz?

Losers see other losers getting their fifteen minutes and they jump on the bandwagon. They leave journals and shit detailing why and how they're doing stuff. They post shit all over social media. You can't tell me that attention seeking isn't playing some role in there.

I also believe that some of the other problems we face in our society also revolves around the media we put out. Racism is now something that is cropped in to almost every killing somehow even if the facts point to other motives. However, the narrative isn't quite so interesting as racism so it must be thrown in there in order to sell. This has the effect of exacerbating racial tensions and effectively creating a problem. Am I saying that racism doesn't exist and/or play a role in these incidents? Not at all. I just believe the Media helps spread it around and actively tries to make it a larger problem than it really is.

This basically:


And as for the community breakdown, I'm referring more towards the rise of social media over face-to-face social gatherings.

We all know how easy it is to lie about shit on the internet vs in person.

But I'm less certain on this as social media presents it's own set of unique challenges that both help and hinder the prevention of crime and reporting.

So yeah ... All this is more my two cents on things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Grothnor
Decimate said:
I missed the whole Gamergate thing. I tried reading up on it when you guys brought her up in order to see what the deal was ... but 99.9999% of articles make her out to be some misunderstood angel from the heavens being picked on by the nasty gaming community. I figured she had to say something incredibly stupid/inflamatory to get some kind of response because she sounds like a nobody to me.
Click to expand...
Just noting here quickly, Anita started with her show "Feminist Frequency" about 2 years before Gamergate even existed.
She pre-dates the movement quite a bit (internet time-wise at least).
 
Gen. Gwazi Senpai said:
Just noting here quickly, Anita started with her show "Feminist Frequency" about 2 years before Gamergate even existed.
She pre-dates the movement quite a bit (internet time-wise at least).
Click to expand...
To be fair, I saw some of her stuff last night and yeah she says some dumb/inflammatory shit at times. But she's still like an internet nobody in my opinion. I'm still scratching my head over how she became some internet paragon/night terror over some of the silly bullshit she nitpicks about in her women in gaming videos.

It's literally impossible to this day to find objective reporting on Gamergate & Sarkeesian that doesn't have bias towards one or the other.
 
*Was meaning to just add a footnote*
*See's this is turning into another discussion*
*Expect a PM to avoid derailing*
 
Decimate said:
I'm still scratching my head over how she became some internet paragon/night terror over some of the silly bullshit she nitpicks about in her women in gaming videos.
Click to expand...
It's because she has a massive following, and quite a bit of power. Word has it that she's actually started to become apart of a few gaming companies to tell them if something is okay to add or not... Granted she's not in no activation or Nintendo, but she keeps growing, and that's what people find scary. People always say "Just ignore them and they'll go away." But no. If you ignore them, they become more powerful.

Decimate said:
It's literally impossible to this day to find objective reporting on Gamergate & Sarkeesian that doesn't have bias towards one or the other.
Click to expand...
That's because it's just something you're either for, or against. Her side is for heavy censorship. If you are for censorship, but to a limit, then you're still not on their side. I don't know if you've noticed lately on the internet, but people and groups have removed the grey line. You're either for, or against these days. sure you may say you're in the middle, and you may very well be in the middle, but in their eyes, there is no middle.
 
I fail to see what Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate have to do with the Second Amendment. Take it back on topic or to PMs or another thread. :P
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: TheGreyWarden and Gwazi Magnum
Ok, I've had to move this to PM twice now. XD

Here's a thread for this so we can stop filling up the second amendment thread now.
 
I find the argument for allowing guns to be silly. Take the example to its to logical extremes. On one hand, you can't take away a person's right to their fists, or a knife - because you need one to do cooking. On the other hand, you wouldn't give everyone access to explosives, missiles, armoured vehicles, etc.

The thing I find odd is that most of the world draws the line at sharp implements, while America (most prominently) draws the line at firearms, which make killing really easy.
 
Last edited:
@unanun

The main point is that America's supreme law allows for the fact that the citizens have a right to overthrow their government if they believe it is tyrannical and not existing to serve their will. It does not grant the right to bear arms to private citizens as it assumes it already exists fundamentally and is not something that can be given or taken away. It merely limits the government from trying to prevent people from protecting themselves.

Is the government going to give up their guns if the second amendment goes away? No.

Is our military and establishment leaders going to give away all our technology and go back to knives and what have you? No.

Are the other countries soldiers going to give up their guns if the American people do? No.

That's why lawfully the citizens should have the right to own them here.

Now do I actually think many of our citizens give a rats posterior about using their firearms to overthrow the government? Again another nope. But they do give a damn about protecting themselves and their property be it from criminals, foreign invaders, wild animals, or their own government who will have access to guns.

Killing is going to take place regardless of whether guns are in the equation or not. Besides they're not just going to go away even if you ban them. Only law abiding citizens (note: everyone who keeps their guns now becomes a criminal?) would turn them in it and follow it. You can't keep humanity from waging war on itself as has already been stated. With technology the way that it is people will just find new trendy ways of killing others that could be on par or even outstrip the gun.

And I'm actually fairly certain you can acquire tanks, explosives, and armored vehicles in America if you have the funds and cash and licensing and what not to do so (?). Most people don't have the funds, ability, or desire to have these things. Not so true with guns.

But yeah. Just some of the reasons why control and requirements for licensing and background checks are more the topic here than successfully getting rid of the second amendment (which doesn't do what most people think it does to begin with).
 
unanun said:
I find the argument for allowing guns to be silly. Take the example to its to logical extremes. On one hand, you can't take away a person's right to their fists, or a knife - because you need one to do cooking. On the other hand, you wouldn't give everyone access to explosives, missiles, armoured vehicles, etc.

The thing I find odd is that most of the world draws the line at sharp implements, while America (most prominently) draws the line at firearms, which make killing really easy.
Click to expand...
Well, if a woman faces a rapist with only her fists, she'll probably get her ass kicked and be the victim of a rape.

If you give a woman a knife, she'll be somewhat less likely to loose, but probably get her ass kicked and be the victim again.

Give her a gun, and all of a sudden she can drop the rapist with little trouble.

If the rapist has a gun... Then her shot at survival is 50/50, which is much higher than her chances of getting away unscathed if she merely had fists or a knife.

Very very few women in the world are Ronda Rousey.
 
Decimate said:
The main point is that America's supreme law allows for the fact that the citizens have a right to overthrow their government if they believe it is tyrannical and not existing to serve their will
Click to expand...
Personally, I think its far more genius than that. The country cannot ever become tyrannical for the simple fact that gun ownership is so prevalent.

Had Hitler not implemented gun confiscation in Germany, I highly doubt he would have gotten passed his own country with his genocidal maniac ideals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Decimate
@Kakumei


War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself - John Stuart Mill.

The problem is that the types mentioned in the quote exist. There will always be those willing to surrender their rights anytime one of these shootings happen in order to be kept safe. They shirk their own responsibilities as citizens on working to prevent crime by sloughing the blame onto guns in order to escape culpability as they're an easy target. They also confuse the fact that it is not the job of the police to prevent crimes rather than act upon crimes already in progress; it is the job of every citizen to prevent crimes.

The rest of us who feel that we would fight would need to be able to win against a potential tyrannical government like our forefathers before us if it gets to that point.
 
Decimate said:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself - John Stuart Mill.
Click to expand...
Great quote.
Decimate said:
The problem is that the types mentioned in the quote exist. There will always be those willing to surrender their rights anytime one of these shootings happen in order to be kept safe. They shirk their own responsibilities as citizens on working to prevent crime by sloughing the blame onto guns in order to escape culpability as they're an easy target. They also confuse the fact that it is not the job of the police to prevent crimes rather than act upon crimes already in progress; it is the job of every citizen to prevent crimes.
Click to expand...
Agreed. As my favorite radio show host said: "We need to be people of maximum freedom, and maximum personal responsibility."

Decimate said:
The rest of us who feel that we would fight would need to be able to win against a potential tyrannical government like our forefathers before us if it gets to that point.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily think that we would have to decisively win. Even if you are only 5 mil with guns strong, and you lose your life fighting a tyrannical government and show its true colors, you then have roughly 200 mil Americans who would converge on and destroy said tyrannical government. I believe that would happen even if that 200 mil didn't have firearms. American's are unique in that every underdog situation, they come out on top.


On a side note, did you year that Hillary Clinton came out recently saying that if she gets into office, she would start gun confiscation via executive fiat?

What in the world is happening here?
 
@Kakumei

Did she really? I'd like to see her try to get away with that one if it is true that is what she said. A gross violation of checks and balances if I have ever seen one!

In any event, Hillary is known to be pretty wishy washy and prone to bad research in her gun campaign. She also tends to forget that it is not the job of the president to decide what is in the best interest of the people. The people decide what is in their own best interest and elect people to relay those needs.

NOTE: I actually have no political motivations in real life. I simply pick what person mostly aligns with my views be they democrat, republican, libertarian, independent or what have you. I'm one of those who are typically against two party factionalism bullshit, but concede that they're ultimately inevitable in our kind of society.
 
@Decimate

I'll have to see if I can find the video for it when I am not being so lazy. But yeah it was something like "If I have to just sign an executive order, so be it."

And I understand what you mean. I myself would vote for a democrat if they shared my values, but I think the ones that did were more like the old "blue dog democrats" that existed before I was a voter.

Its probably because of my age and cultural background, but I am pretty much of the "leave me alone" type. Libertarian probably best describes me. I think government should stay out of everything unless the people really have a case on why they should be involved and I think we should stop going to war unless people actually ask for our help. If we do go to war, it should be with the ferocity of "Shock and Awe", and then get the hell out.
 
Cpt Toellner said:
Debate threads. Debate threads never change.
Click to expand...
Side note- I have to pee. But I am way too lazy right now to get up.

Maybe that should be the next debate thread. Peeing vs Laziness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back