Prelude to the Apocalypse

[neorichieb1971]

Well, i've dived in, had a look, had my say. You've been nice about it.

Even if I said guns are dangerous, someone will come out of the woodwork and say its people that are dangerous. For every argument there is, an American finds a counter argument.

On my level of idealistic living, guns should be in the hands of folk who have a use for them. Not for people who fear for being on the wrong end of the stick at some point in their lives or folk who want to create mass murder against people they have never met. This is a situation where nobody votes for difference, unless everyone is a winner. So for now, I will consider that the USA is in its comfort zone and leave it at that.

[Air Master Burst]

So for now, I will consider that the USA is in its comfort zone and leave it at that.

Nobody here is comfortable, america is a dystopian capitalist hellscape. You non-americans aren't wrong when you point out all this obvious shit, it's just that usually the closest thing you have to a constructive suggestion is "just stop."

We know it's fucked up here. Nobody knows how to fix it.

[BulletMagnet]

Do USA citizens not agree that certain "Freedoms" should somehow be earned?

The line you usually hear from the pro-gun crowd is that, unlike medical or driver's licenses, the right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, though as I've mentioned before I find this reasoning highly unpersuasive, for two main reasons:

1) Just because it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't automatically make it universal and without any conditions: literally every other right therein has exceptions attached to prevent them from being unduly exploited, i.e. you have the right to free speech, but aren't allowed to slander someone or incite a riot without legal consequences. As the saying goes, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

2) In case you're not familiar with the exact text of the Second Amendment, this is it:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's literally the whole thing.

You might notice, perhaps to your surprise, that the first few words therein refer to a "well-regulated" militia, immediately suggesting that the Founders were not only open to but explicitly defined limits on the bearing of arms as not necessarily "infringing" on the foundational right to bear them: the gun nuts, however, insist - and I'm not making this up - that the position of the second comma indicates that the first half of the amendment is basically just there for decoration, that the militia and "the people" who would make up said militia are somehow two completely separate entities with completely separate rights, and only the latter half actually carries any legal weight.

Even ignoring the fact that different copies of the Constitution sent for ratification during the founding contain varying amounts of commas within the amendment (as few as one in some cases, if memory serves), while I'm not a Constitutional scholar on its face it frankly strikes me as ridiculous that the writers would open the passage with such a specific phrase just to be flowery, and require subsequent generations to tie themselves into knots to arrive at the "real" meaning they intended as opposed to the one that immediately slaps you in the face the second you read it.

Aside from those two items, other arguments against Second Amendment absolutism actually call out the contemporary American right's supposed "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution, i.e. modern jurists should only consider the laws specifically via the context and intentions of the writers from over two centuries ago: from that perspective, the only arms that should be guaranteed are single-shot muskets that take ages to manually load and only reliably hit their targets from short distances. As with everything else, of course, right-wingers only ever actually apply "originalism" when it suits their purposes and ignore it when it doesn't, but that's a whole separate kettle of fish.

Again, if polling is accurate a majority of gun owners actually support additional restrictions on gun ownership; the problem is that you never seem to hear about this anywhere outside of said polls, especially not at the ballot box. As to why...well, you've already heard my reasoning on the matter.

[Blinge]

wheeeeeee, here we go!

[Sengoku Strider]

Who picked 2022-2025 in the thread poll?

[Sima Tuna]

We will see now if Netanyahu's arrogance spells the downfall of his country or not.

[Sengoku Strider]

We will see now if Netanyahu's arrogance spells the downfall of his country or not.

Only Fatality From Mass Iranian Missile Attack Is Palestinian Man From Gaza


I'm gonna go with or not.

There are already tens of thousands of US troops there to keep a lid on things, Iran is making noise because the Israelis are dismantling Hezbollah and their protection racket is looking pretty thin on the ground right now.

[BryanM]

And I was feeling optimistic about things, damn.

The latter half of this year was a textbook example of an increasingly improbable chain of events that could only be explained by that stupid, subjective observer nonsense I was talking about earlier. Quantum immortality:

* For no reason, Trump debates Biden on TV.

* The donors, who are really stupid and live in the world of TV too, finally realize Biden is going to lose and pull the emergency lever.

* Kamala, against all expectations, dumps the Clinton strategists. This is absolutely unprecedented. They've had their tendrils wrapped around the party for 30-something years now.

* Thanks to this, she is able to select human being Tim Walz, instead of a Joseph Manchin motherfucker like Joseph Lieberman or Joseph Biden. (Let's all just agree all Joes are terrible human beings. I should know: I'm one of them.)

* I reiterate, that is a very big motherfuckin' deal. This passes the coronation torch of the next chosen one to a teacher. It can't be understated how massive this one decision is for humanity as a whole.

* It's literally the Democrats trying to win an election. Unprecedented. It's been lifetimes since this last happened.

* Maybe the world doesn't end.

Absolutely none of this could be explained by a rational chain of causal events. It can only be explained by stupid metaphysical woo.

By activating some leftists and normie young people, they now have a slightly better than a coinflip's chance of winning. Maybe a little better than that. I've never seen the left so libbed up in my life, I've been watching Vaush videos this year for god's sake.

Was really hoping for a future that was the scifi utopia Bladerunner, instead of the inevitable 1984 but worse we were heading toward.

Here's to hoping that if she wins, she doesn't decide to continue this nonsense. If Reagan and his identical twin Obama put a stop to it before, I'm stupid enough to feel some hope she might as well.

Who picked 2022-2025 in the thread poll?

I would have, but I don't like to contaminate the results. Made the poll because it felt like material concerns were coming to a head, and it was now or never. 2021 was always meant as a joke for those with shorter timeframes than me (and if they were right, they should be praised for calling something nobody saw coming that soon), and past 2030 it kind of feels like the window would have passed.

I guess if this actually kicks off I'll have to... make a new one.... I guess it'll be between whether you believe the decisive apocalypse that manifests will be Climate, AI, or Nuclear-related and timeframes for those....

[BulletMagnet]

We will see now if Netanyahu's arrogance spells the downfall of his country or not.

Unless the US finally gets fed up and tells him he's on his own, no. And unfortunately Biden and Harris seem infinitely more willing to lose the "we'd rather not vote for enablers of genocide" demographic, and quite possibly the election, than do that.

[vol.2]

We will see now if Netanyahu's arrogance spells the downfall of his country or not.

Unless the US finally gets fed up and tells him he's on his own, no. And unfortunately Biden and Harris seem infinitely more willing to lose the "we'd rather not vote for enablers of genocide" demographic, and quite possibly the election, than do that.

What exactly do you think Harris can do about it? She's not the commander and chief. I think it's not unconceivable that she would reverse course if elected.

[BulletMagnet]

Feel free to point out something major I've missed, but just about every piece of her rhetoric on Israel I've been exposed to has been nearly identical to Biden's, i.e. a meek "they need to do better", but not even so much as proposing any manner of consequences when Netanyahu not only openly flips the proverbial bird at the administration but escalates the violence with absolutely no signs of slowing down.

Could she pull a sudden about-face if she takes office? Anything's possible, I suppose, but if anything remotely different from continuing unconditional support is in the works she's sure as hell not dropping any hints about it - and, I would again argue, is losing voters over this in the meantime, just as Biden did when he was (keyword "was") the candidate.