Remember how yesterday Cracked was hoping that Congress would pass some strong gun control in reaction the Sacking of the Capitol (where the only person shot was by a cop...)
But it gets better, when talking on how they rioters get in:
Armored assault vehicles? Who needs em? Just ask the police nicely, and they'll let you through the gates.
Of course, maybe that wouldn't have worked since the terrorists in Olympus Has Fallen were North Korean, and the ones attacking the Capitol on Wednesday were um ... well, look at the videos and see if you can pick out a common theme.
So they're gonna mainstream that theory? There it is.
Given yesterday's plea for gun control Cracked thinks that racist cops who (in this specific case worked with literal pillaging vandals), and Cracked has have at many many times exposed US law enforcement institutional corruption, sympathized with BLM.... shoudl have more police power.
After a part decrying free speech for the commoners we get this part:
For example, after every mass shooting, my feed is full of celebrities saying "Get rid of the guns" and columns about how it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment, pointing out that half-measures like background checks and mental health interventions won't stop similar attacks. The problem is that, even without looking at polls, you have to know that Americans really, really like guns. If you do look at the polls, you'll find that only one in five Americans want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and only one in nine feel strongly about it. Yet, when we see a video of sprawled corpses in a shopping center, millions of well-meaning people think, "It'd be nice if we could just, you know, do it anyway."
So.... the whole "background checks and red flaws" are just half measures? And the mentioning of Celebrities filling my twitter feed, right after decrying free speech....
So much for "nobody wants to take your guns" or... nobody wants to take your cars or meat... And note this is *AFTER* the item where the writer muses that most of the populace just can't handle free speech.
That's actually the unspoken tension behind every argument about censorship or "cancel culture." Speech only exists in human brains, so the problem isn't the comedian's bigoted joke; it's the assumption that some segment of the audience will not have the brainpower to know what to do with it. You're giving a blowtorch to a toddler.
Blow-torch toddler. But guns should be banned because Celebrities want it.
If society can't be saved without a strong majority of citizens on board, and we secretly believe that most of them are immune to both reason and empathy, then what are we suggesting be done? This isn't a rhetorical question! We literally will have to answer it! Shit!
Saved. So.... what is the answer?
If right after complaining about people having free speech.... one complains about what to do to with a majority of voters who "are immune to both reason and empathy", what conclusion would you come to?
Followed by an item about.... dropping testosterone? And bemoaning some culture war:
That is, in fact, the larger problem -- our addiction to antagonism has made us even worse at processing information than we already were. When every spoken word is seen as a shot fired in some goddamned culture war, then facts are useful only as ammunition.
Yeah shame that.
ANd then gets into a neo-luddite rant about automation. Which then goes to "twitter feed solutions"
The obvious solution, among the people in my Twitter feed, is a Universal Basic Income. To make up for paychecks lost to automation, the government taxes the corporations and gives us a monthly check just for existing. This would apparently mean that a skilled and ambitious minority will continue to do the tasks too advanced for robots, but the hundreds of millions displaced by self-driving cars, delivery drones, and retail kiosks will just become full-time consumers, I guess? Planted on the sofa, staring at a screen and getting zombified by social media dopamine drips?
That's the positive solution!
But what about people who still have to work?
He or she then passes by a porch full of stoned, giggling UBI neighbors, still up from an all-night gaming session (it doesn't matter if this characterization of the neighbors is unfair -- what matters is the perception). You're saying this person won't feel any resentment toward them? That they won't feel like their own vote should count for more, that the system shouldn't be geared more toward the needs of the "producers?"
Well.... given earlier you proposed that some people can't handle free speech, and that people who like such icky things as guns.... meat... or cars.... can still vote is "problematic".....
Again, what solution comes to mind?
And to be clear, I'm not pointing the finger at anyone but myself here. I don't have children, even though I have a yard, a spare bedroom, and a penis that almost works too well. Shouldn't I be forced to raise at least two replacement kids and train them in some high-value task? Shit, am I even doing a high-value task? I make a good living writing escapist novels with increasingly stupid titles. Isn't that a frivolous inefficiency in the system? Shouldn't somebody be forcing me to write patriotic propaganda or cautionary tales about climate change?
Umm.... doesn't that sound pretty fascist? So much for, I can do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else....
But it gets better
I spent thousands of dollars on vet bills when my dog got cancer; would that be allowed in a perfectly just and efficient society? In fact, should people capable of treating cancer even be allowed to waste their talents on dogs?
Should. Be. Allowed. We have a man who literally is bemoaning not just that people are allowed to care for pets, but that veterinary workers are ALLOWED to provide such care.
Nobody is taking your veterinary oncologists.
If you want to know how compassionate, caring, eco-woke people can end up oh-so-reluctantly endorsing fascism? Here you go. (And for more examples the comments can be pretty chilling)
And this shows why a grounding in what was once called Classical Liberalism is so *vital* because without a foundation of: "Yeah individuals for all their flaws have rights in what they can say and do" you end up with....
"Well, maybe for the good of all free speech, universal suffrage, self defense, vehicular mobility should be replaced by food rationing, assigned labor serfdom, censorship of books, full rationing of medical care" And not one wiff or worry about the corruption or /who/ would be running such a state?
I mean going "*We* need to take away all the freedoms and inefficiencies of liberal democracy, for the duration of the emergency" sounds a /bit/ familiar no
Shocking from Cracked it's not how police treat armed citizens... it's how police treat their own guns.
There's not even a mention int he article about gun laws in the use for the public.
And this is from Dan Duddly, one of Cracked's more angry writers.
The most gun controlish is when he cites The Trace....
George Floyd did not die by a bullet. His cause of death
was asphyxiation brought about by compression of the neck. Still, it
could easily be argued that the officer who killed him, and the three
other officers who prevented bystander intervention were empowered to do so because they were armed.
And this end may hint....
I don't know whether the solution is to defund the police,
disarm the police, abolish the police, or something else entirely. But
we're clearly doing something wrong here, and it's all the more
frustrating because everyone else seems to have figured it out already.
Though I suppose he avoids a reflexive demand for gun control because
1) the two examples he cites neither person killed was armed
2) any gun control would be enforced by the police. So could be like Stop and Frisk or like the War on Drugs in general, where the police would be even further empowered to go after people,
3) the argument of "cops are trigger-happy racists who will kill unarmed minorities. Clearly they need to go around disarming minorities," is a bit.... tough.
and
4) This doesn't even get into how police departments are except from gun laws. They can have high capacity magazines, assault weapons, even full on machine guns. And officers are except from many laws for their personal weapons (safe handgun rosters, carry permits) which carries on after they retire from the force.
So when one of Craked's most prolific angry culture warrior writers can't bring himself to go after gun rights....
This article isn't... bad as it gets how gun owners group together and among each other gun ownership is normal and something to talk about.
The first warning signs come early...
The view of guns as neutral tools, a view shared by
conservative defenders of gun rights as well as liberal advocates of gun
regulation, misses a crucial fact about guns and gun ownership. It wrongly
assumes that the distribution of guns and their presence in their owners' lives
are totally independent facts that don't shape the opportunities and choices of
the people who use them.
Right, because gun control advocates aren't about deodand thinking and "the trigger pulls the finger."
The article does seem to, at some level, get things.
In part because of their danger and allure and in part
because they're the center of a sporting culture with deep American roots, guns
draw adherents together in contexts like expos, gun ranges, and online
chatrooms. At the recreational level, participants can indulge in hobbyist
debate and discussion; on a political and cultural level, they can also forge a
shared commitment to armed citizenship. Gun owners bond over their shared fear of diffuse and
unpredictable threats of contemporary life. The Pew survey concluded: “Many,
but not all, gun owners exist in a social context where gun ownership is the
norm. Roughly half of all gun owners say that all or most of their friends own
guns. … In stark contrast, among the non-gun owning public, only one-in-ten say
all or most of their friends own guns.”
But the it goes off the rails at the end. Here's the second to last paragraph.
Any real gun law reform is going to need to take this
community and value system into account. Liberals need gun owners as allies. Today,
in the wake of more mass shootings, good citizenship requires that the millions
of gun owners who say they support gun regulation do more than think about their
own way of life. They need to turn that support into vocal activism. In so
doing, they may help bring about changes necessary to protect the communities
that we all share.
Funny how after all the talk about how despite that gun owners "neither trust the government nor believe that it will
protect them" now suddenly, "good citizenship" requires them to do... exactly what gun control advocates want.
Namely back gun control. Not just back but become activists in support in.
Funny how that works.
Okay... so what will gun owners get in return? Well here's the last paragraph.
In order for them to be willing to do so, gun owners need assurance that liberal gun reform advocates will not march down a slippery slope from red-flag laws, regulating semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines and closing the gun-show loophole to intrusive regulations that start to break down a culture that millions of people value greatly—one that enriches their lives and whose roots go back before America's founding.
So... gun control advocates get... just about everything they want. And gun owners get "assurances" that gun control advocates won't ask for more.
Except banning the most common guns and IS breaking down the culture.
(Also... Assault Weapon Bans are now semi-auto "regulation"? Which is all pistols and the majority of rifles...)
And if the writer doesn't think destroying the culture isn't the goal of gun control advocates then he's more of a sucker than those gun owners who bought into those "assurances" of those "gun reform advocates".
Look at the states that have passed the laws the writer so clearly wants. What's the worth of any "assurances" to gun owners living in California or New Jersey?
New Zealand doesn't have a Second Amendment, their Prime Minister recently bragged about how firearm ownership is a privilege over there (a couple days before deeming a whole bunch of guns banned without even bothering to put a bill before parliament)
But they also are going after free speech.
It's one thing to deny the terrorist bastards the infamy and fame they so desire. It's another, as NZ has done, to make it a crime to posses or show people their manifesto.
And conveniently this particular manifesto is where the monster says he expects and endorses the State to take certain actions. Actions that the State eagerly and proudly did.
"The Office of Film and Literature classification announced Saturday that the document is objectionable under the law."
Well... isn't that a handy power for their State to have.
Keep that in mind, all the people going "We should be like New Zealand." They have a Chief Censor, who will ban documents that are problematic for the goverment. Of course you'l say "It's on the internet, so it's silly for them to think they can ban it." Which I say "Welcome to the Party, Pal."
But more importantly...
Now only is the NZ goverment doing some of the things the terrorist wanted, but they are literally making it a crime for someone to provide evidence of it.
So the PM of New Zealand is strutting about with how "they did something"
And she's oh so proud to announce that in a week (Take that Australia!) she's made her gun control. And is demanding the proles turn in their guns. So far 37 (which is weak for a neighborhood buyback level)
And all the gun control advocates are cheering. Except... the bans aren't even before parliament yet. And they'll be introduced on in "the first week of April".
So... maybe 20 days.
Huh. Though the scary part is that despite there not being a law (yet) the PM is already demanding guns be turned in and rounded up.
As someone noted "Gotta keep up appearances against Australia."
Though much of their ire could be because there /were/ enough members of said caucus to vote with the other party to add that provision to HR8.
Though I suppose it is consistent given how /infrequent/ people
who fail a background check due to felonious convictions are actually /prosecuted/
for the crime of lying on said check.
Pelosi who is trying to make a UBC bill seem all Appleball
and Basepie is probably having a "You said the loud part quiet and the
quiet part loud" at this.
Jay Stanley one of the org's Senior Policy Analysts makes the case.
That is if Governments don't pass Gun Control Laws they'll
instead pass other laws such as:
More
physical searches
More Surveillance
More databases and watch lists
More armed police in more situations
More police shootings
And
their solution is to push for gun control?
Nevermind
that the War On Guns would make the War On Drugs look like a picnic.
But what Gun control is the ACLU looking for?
I mean
Stop and Frisk was largely about checking people for /guns/, in a jurisdiction
where Legal carry was defacto banned.
As for
watchlsits, the ACLU was against the whole "No Fly No Buy" which is
using secret blacklists to ban people from owning guns.
And do
they really think that if the police are more suspect that someone has an illegal
gun that they would be less inclined to wrongly use violence?
Meanwhile
the ACLU in this /very article/ talks down Red Flag Laws and Extreme Protective
Orders?
So...
what gun control exactly do they think is okay?
But the last paragraph shows what it's really about:
As we as a society consider the issue of gun violence, these
implications for American freedom also need to become part of the conversation.
In particular, those who support expansive gun rights as a protection against
excessive government power should strongly consider how much government
intrusion and expanded power they’re willing to trade for those rights.
In other words: Stop defending your gun rights you icky gun nuts! The state's going to go after stuff I like instead!
Turn that around, the article is literally saying "Hey,
how many of the rights I like can I get in exchange for agreeing to some gun
control?"
Of course given Gun Control would result in less privacy (data
bases watch-lists, ect), less due process (red flag laws and other bans), and
more police interference....
It seems like a rather sucky trade.
Also... does the ACLU really want to take the argument "Because
there are a lot of X in the country, the State may overreact and infringe on
unrelated rights, therefore we should support restrictions on X!"
But hardening proposals also exhibit a circular logic that runs deeply counter to the spirit of the Second Amendment. Again, that provision implies a duty to resist tyranny, in all the forms of military, surveillance, and governmental overreach that helped spark the revolution. Suggestions to create a police state in American schools, however, mirror other pro-authoritarian tendencies that run counter to this instinct. In the creation of the carceral state, in the expansion of drug laws, and in the extreme militarization of police in recent years, people have argued that placing more guns in the hands of authorities is the only way to keep people safe. But why would pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts be in favor of providing more firepower to the government?
Of course the teacher in this question isn't armed as a requirement for their job. Nor is it an issued weapon. The object is instead to give the option for someone to legally carry a personal weapon.
Though to get to that bit you had to read through a lot of drec.
It also ends on an interesting note.
One legal theory used to oppose the preferences of many defenders of the Second Amendment is based on the fact that the militarized American police state has advanced far beyond the ability of any possible well-regulated militia to stop it. But lost in that observation is the fact that Americans—many of them staunch gun-rights advocates—have pushed repeatedly to bolster the military and the creep of militarism into other civic arenas.
A true point.
They’ve then trapped the country in an arms race between government and civilians, one in which civilians face severe losses from both state and private violence. And now students, protected in schools by the most basic tenets of the social contract, find themselves in the line of fire.
Except the social contract doesn't work if the police refuse to do their part...
What's interesting is to see that for such a system to work certain levels of competence, fairness, and acceptance are needed on the level of the goverment at a minimum.
First the state has to make sure the system actually runs and that there is food available. That is if a product is being rationed then having it available in some level is vital. As is ensuring that people can actually live on the rations provided.
Second the system has to at least attempt to minimize the whole "shut up prole know your place" sentiment that is pretty eternal. Where the connected and well to do, especially if those people are the ones running the system, can still gorge themselves on whatever they want. (That said given game one harvested was not rationed, and hunting in the UK is very much a well-to-do pursuit...)
Third is acceptance. Teetotalers and prohibitionists pushed for Lord Woolton, the man running the system, to ban alcohol in England. (Their argument was that grains used in booze could be better used in food) Woolton pointed out that asking workers who where already increasing their hours and lessening the variety of their food, to also give up all booze would cause riots.
One can see that in today's world of state governments that can't even keep a lottery self-funding, goverment health organizations that enact polities that increase obesity, where well to do bolivators and goverment mandarins take private jets to exotic locations to lecture on how the proles should have less electricity, and demand policies that seem to be driven out of spitefully denying people simple joys....
Well, competence, fairness, and acceptance are in short supply.
So far there's an overview of some of the nuts and bolts of the British WW2 (and beyond) domestic rationing system.
Not just linking for a historical interest, but as this was a massive state regulation of food with rationing (obviously), price controls, wholesale purchase, attempts to influence supply and demand, and social engineering.
And this is a scheme that seems to have functioned fairly well, resulted in improved health, and had less black market activity than many other rationing programs.
My natural libertarian leanings recoil at such at thing, but in the points of intellectual honesty I am curious to learn more.
Well that's not entirely fair. Cracked does blame the cops in a "both parties are bad" view.
Think I'm kidding?
Let's go with some quotes:
Much of America fiercely believes that A) every citizen should have
the right to defend their own home with deadly force, and B) that police
should kick in the door of any residence that might have drugs inside.
You know, to keep our children safe.
What about those of us that are against the War on Drugs?
But note the whole "well both sides..." apologia starts.
The police stormed the home, but, like roughly half of Texans,
Rosas was a legal gun owner. He responded to his window exploding by
opening fire on the source of said explosion. If that response sounds
crazy to you, it should be noted that Rosas had been the victim of
drive-by shootings before. It was that kind of neighborhood, and he had
previously testified against a local gangbanger (meaning he had been expecting retaliation).
So... the article does a good point of showing that Rosas wasn't crazy for his reaction.
The combined amount of drugs seized in these cases could fit in your
pockets. Question: Have we as a society lost our fucking minds?
Note... that Cracked here isn't talking about just the "War on Drugs"
In fairness the next few points show just how insane the War on Drugs is and the dangers of no-knock raids. And how much more forgiving the system is to police abuses and how the legal system grinds people down.
So before you think this is a plea for drug legalization, or reforming police abuses....
In the 1980s, the U.S. saw roughly 3,000 SWAT raids
per year. Now we're at 50-80,000 raids per year (that's the whole
"militarization of police" thing you've been hearing about). This means
that in the U.S., a couple of hundred homes are raided every single day,
in a country with 300 million privately owned guns.
All because this fierce cultural defense of one freedom (to own a
firearm) doesn't seem to translate to any other. It wasn't Magee's
ownership of an AR-10 assault that made him dangerous to the state, but
his growing of several plants.
If you don't care about the lives of drug users or dealers (and we
know for a fact that lots of people don't), then what about the lives of
police officers? Or bystanders? How easily could this have ended
tragically for Rosas' mother, or Kori White, or her unborn baby? Or are
their lives also worthless due to proximity?
If you think so, can you please stop and ask yourself the same question we raised earlier: Have we lost our fucking minds?
Emphasis added. One could generous with the article going "Well they call gun ownership a freedom" but reading in the cited context. They writers are clearly just as angry that the guy owned a gun, as they are that the police were abusive.
The twisted parts is that. Cracked routinely (in fact that's the bread and butter of this very blog) lobbies for gun control. Do they think that the Police seriously pushing Australia style gun control measures wouldn't end up with things just like this?
In fact it's another Cracked piece. This time Cracked goes back to their wheelhouse (used
complementary in this case). Of interviewing a person with a unique experience.
Speifically someone who served on a grand jury on anofficer involved shooting. It's an interesting read as it covers issues of
emotions, timing, information restriction while the trial is occurring,
ignorance in media reporting, use of force procedures, and even a bit on the
aftermath of someone who has been "cleared" in a shooting.
So last week Cracked Ran an article on how powerful police interrogations can be.
(But doesn't talk about why that's a real good idea to lawyer up once you've stated the minimum the situation deems appropriate. )
Watch to the conclusion to see why swords are high status.
Specifically why being able to carry around a sword day to day was high status...
And for a modern version, consider how May Issue restricts carry to the wealthy & connected and their retainers.
Conversely that means Shall Issue (let alone Constitutional or permitless carry) is extremely egalitarian. And thus makes carry law a very useful litmus test for how much a person really is committed to the idea of equal rights.
Also note that the logic that not voting in the way the President wants is a rejection of the constitution and democratic values. Well again... see the first meme they put up.
This was something that we knew could have happened. The president having a change to put in another SCOTUS appointment and swing the court to gut the 2nd Amendment.
Gonna be a mess...
(And the cynic in me wonders how long it'll be until the Senate Republicans fold and go with whoever the President picks).
So to... lighten the mood. Let's pull back to the same pool I get Mr. A and the other folks.
Now remember, *all* of these people are liberal and rather... forceful about how compasionate adn caring they are.
[Blue-collar-Left-who is anti-police and anti-rich]: Yancy. My Facebook feed is like an endless celebration right now
[Leftist who internet stalks people and talks about abusing her job at the cable company]: "As I attempted to write something nice about Justice Antonin Scalia, Twitter's 140 character limit suddenly seemed enormous."
And then someone linked in "Ding Dong the Witch is dead"
Because compassion.
Update: The same blue-collar lefty had this link to add. With the caption "Loooool". Which means as an upshot... this very white liberal is a-okay with saying Clarence Thomas is akin to a race-traitor slave mourning the death of his master. Lovely fellow eh?
Their article on Flint's water mess is interesting for two reasons
1) they admit that government is completely, dangerously incompetent and utterly without redress or accountability. 2) And despite the heresy in 1 the article is an amazing case of "the dog that didn't bark"....
Sure they bemoan how infrastructure is crumbling and how "Our parents were promised Star Trek. We're getting, like, fucking Battletruck," but there's no mention of how politicians have been demanding and crowing about their infrastructure spending.
And it's not broached that despite the various governments have been spending huge amounts on "infrastructure" (Remember the Stimulus?) that the money has just "vanished"
Sure the article bemoans the racism in the system, but ignores who is running the system. (Heck the article breezily sidesteps how this was being used to solely blame the one Republican the media could find...)
It's yet another case of the people screaming for "more government" decrying the actions of "more government."
See Mr. A is a known and very irate Champagne Socialist and of late... incoherent Gamergate supporter (incoherent in the sense that he produces pro gamergate memes that are dense and confusing).
So it shouldn't be surprising that Mr. A is looking for other sources of news and taking it where he can. This is a man who works in a technical field and despite being very liberal has a raging hate for Greens, Feminists, and SWJs (his words).
What's interesting is the reaction from two others in the room.
[Blue-collar-Left-who is anti-police and anti-rich]: Huh rand paul
[Blue-collar-Left-who is anti-police and anti-rich]: Guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day
[Quite Left, Quite Rich Englishman] Hey, at least your elected leader hasn't said "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone."
That shows the lack of true empathy (which is not limited to the left). An American who follows police abuses and civil liberties should not be surprised that Rand Paul is anti-patriot act.
And as for the Englishman.... big words coming from someone who was all gung ho about "hate speech" laws. And this isn't any sort of defense of the insane, totalitarian speech restrictions the Tories are promoting (which read like something out of an Allan Moore comic), but then again, I don't advocate for hate speech or that news outlets I don't like should be banned...
[Quite Left, Quite Rich Englishman] I'm pretty sure the tartan tory vote willl have literally died out within the next twenty years, after all.
Amusing given the Tartan Labour vote has also died out... Don't they have the same number of seats up in Scotland as the Tories do?
Really the whole "One Nation" claptrap used to justify mass free speech suppression is darkly amusing given an openly secessionist party has one basically all of the Scottish parliament seats.
And Mr. A has some.. surprising thoughts on that:
I'm kind of thankful that the SNP exists. Everyone in the states who gives a damn is looking at that and thinking, and we'd be a lot better off as a union of states than as either 'murrica or Amerikkka
Oh? "States Rights" and shrinking the power of the Federal government? Though again don't take much heart to this, given Mr. A seems to be thinking this way because of "Those damn feminists!"
[Quite Left, Quite Rich Englishman] It hasn't stopped the UK electing a government whose agenda includes scrapping the Human Rights Act, permitting pervasive monitoring, bringing in arbitrary restrictions on undesirables, and introducing censorship of the media. And that's just what they're admitting to.
Again, this is coming from someone quite well off (has a house in the London area that is astronomically valued) who thinks Labour isn't "red" enough. And in the past has gone about the dangers of Hate Speech and that there's not enough restrictions to keep the media "honest". Who, like Mr. A, has demanded confiscatory taxes that they themselves would be except from...
But this shows that "the left" is actually quite riven with division and cuts, especially when you go international.
Again the Englishman in the room has this sarcastic bon mot :
On the 'plus side', telling the police union to piss off and live with their heavy cuts was a rather brave move for a politician to make after serious riots only a few years ago with heavy cuts to public services and welfare on the cards.
Which is a sharp contrast with the American leftists in the room who are extremely anti-police to where they'll even complain about police unions, which used to be sacred such US circles.
(Though there will be come cognitive dissonance with gun control... in that cops shouldn't have weapons of war, but cops should be able to say who can and cannot have gun permits...)
