Deep State Unraveling

[Peter]

On 2/13/2021 at 8:47 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

bviously Trump wanted the protesters to pull out submachine guns, assault rifles, bazookas, grenades, mortars, in fact, a whole arsenal of ordinance and mow down any and all people before them right before the protesters set fire to the capitol building. He wanted the walls of the capitol to cave in and topple.

I possess fire arms, yet with the historic and recent use of assault weapons to murder a lot of Americans, I am rethinking “the ban.”

Rand Paul wrote: . . . Stopping Biden's "assault weapons" ban, national gun registration, and other gun grabs is a fight that conservatives can win. But the stakes are high, and the enemies of the Second Amendment will be ferociously struggling to ram these bills through Congress and make them into law. There was never any doubt that a Biden presidency would mean the fight of a lifetime to protect the Constitution from the radical Left. And with Congress so evenly divided, the outcome truly could go either way . . . . end quote

I disagree. We ban weapons like machine guns, grenades, bazookas, and atomic weapons, etc. from civilian use. I think we should also ban assault weapons. Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

40 minutes ago, Peter said:

I think we should also ban assault weapons.

Peter,

Why not handguns?

If the things I have read are true, handguns kill far more people than any other kind of firearm in America. From what I recall of what I have read, the distance is not even close.

And for that matter, why not ban cars?

I understand cars kill even more than handguns do.

And as gravy, banning cars would even help fight manmade climate change...

   

Michael

[Peter]

29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If the things I have read are true, handguns kill far more people than any other kind of firearm in America.

Agreed. Ban all firearms that carry a lot of firepower. I sold my Lugar some time ago, but the German Nazis knew how to kill as many people as possible in a matter of seconds.

One in the chamber. A full clip. And one or two in the pocket. A maniac could wipe out a Walmart. Signed, "Brass in Pocket."

But how can "gun retrieval" be done? Ban the future sales? Confiscate? Make it a crime to own one? That makes me a bit squeamish. 

Cars that kill people are not weapons.  

    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Here's a timeline for you, too.

First let's ban all guns from criminals.

All of them. Not one criminals with a gun.

Once criminals are no longer armed, we will ban guns from law enforcement.

Once law enforcement is no longer armed, we will ban guns from foreign countries. 

Once foreign countries are no longer armed, we will ban guns from the USA military.

Once the military is no longer armed, we will ban the manufacturer and sale of guns.

Once all that has happened and has been implemented successfully--and not before--we can start to debate banning guns from lawful citizens of the United States of America.

Does that sound like a plan?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Cars that kill people are not weapons.  

Peter,

Surely you jest.

Here is just a scratch on a snowflake on the tip of an iceberg.

A look at attacks where vehicles have been used as weapons

Here are a few more examples while throwing terrorism into the mix.

Vehicles as Weapons of Terror

Get with the program, dude.

People don't kill people. Cars kill people.

Ban cars immediately.

Help save the world.

   

Michael

[Peter]

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Does that sound like a plan?

No. And the smiley face adds no rationality, just silliness.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, Peter said:

No. And the smiley face adds no rationality, just silliness.

Peter,

You mean bullying nonviolent citizens is rational, but bullying violent criminals is silly?

Think about what you are proposing.

Anyway, it's obvious we disagree on this.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's an interesting take on gun violence.

I agree with Scott.

It wasn't immediately obvious to me, though. (I tend to be slow at time. Sad, but true.  )

I had to think this one through.

But Scott is spot on.

Michael

[tmj]

What is an "assault weapon" ?

A weapon that can be used in an assault ? Or a weapon that can only be used in an assault? Or god-forbid , a volitional weapon ?

Can I smash a pickle jar with a finishing hammer? I've never wrenched a monkey but I think I can with my toolbox. I heard about a guy who built a sneaker empire with a waffle iron , how the hell was that possible? I have a plastic card in my wallet so I possess healthcare?

Maybe we should ban all weapons save anti-assault weapons, or just ban gunpowder. Frigates with cannon but no powder ar cargo vessels. Are fireplaces always hot ?

[ThatGuy]

Waiting for all the people here who were rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the Capital "insurrection" and blaming Trump to now hold Maxine Waters accountable...(but not holding my breath, they'll probably either ignore it or even make rationalizatios or excuses for her...)
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9483471/amp/Fury-Maxine-Waters-tells-Minnesota-BLM-protesters-weve-got-confrontational.html

[tmj]

Odd how our leaders need NG troops and fencing in DC, but can walk the streets in certain crowds with implied impunity.

Insurrection is welcomed among insurrectionists.

[ThatGuy]

2 hours ago, tmj said:

Odd how our leaders need NG troops and fencing in DC, but can walk the streets in certain crowds with implied impunity.

Insurrection is welcomed among insurrectionists.

And yet, some supposed pro-Trump people here will blame Trump for the Capital incident, and  call for gun control and bans, while Maxine Waters is out there calling for violence...with "friends" like that, who needs Chinese infiltration or the Deep State?

(Seriously...blaming Trump when he urged for a peaceful protest, while Waters and her friends are calling for violent revolution...some of you ostriches here have your heads so far down in the hole that it's no longer excusable or forgivable.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9483471/amp/Fury-Maxine-Waters-tells-Minnesota-BLM-protesters-weve-got-confrontational.html

 

[Peter]

Here we go again. Another active shooting is going on in Texas. Rifles and pistols that have “magazines” allow angry or crazy people to murder more people, day after day, week after week. I am getting sick of it. And I am sick of being a standing target if I go to a store.  No, I am not advocating we stop distributing rifles, shotguns, or pistols in general; just those that can be used to murder larger numbers of people. The right to bear fire arms will not be infringed on if we ban assault weapons including pistols with magazines, just as America already banned machine guns. A six shooter is plenty. Just ask anyone from the old west. 

[ThatGuy]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

Here we go again. Another active shooting is going on in Texas. Rifles and pistols that have “magazines” allow angry or crazy people to murder more people, day after day, week after week. I am getting sick of it. And I am sick of being a standing target if I go to a store.  No, I am not advocating we stop distributing rifles, shotguns, or pistols in general; just those that can be used to murder larger numbers of people. The right to bear fire arms will not be infringed on if we ban assault weapons including pistols with magazines, just as America already banned machine guns. A six shooter is plenty. Just ask anyone from the old west. 

And I am sick of those who who sell out liberty for security. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

A "six-shooter"? Peter would have you disarmed against a stronger force (because criminals and such always obey rules and bans, right? And NEVER commit their attacks in "gun-free zones", right?) and is still thinking that the police and government are here to help...

Or... is this post meant as a distraction? Nothing to say about Maxine Waters? And her call for violence against citizens? You'd have people defending themselves and their families, while the police and National Guard are ORDERED to stand down, when the mobs start raging and cities and suburbs are looted and burned again, with "six-shooters?"

With "friends" like you, who needs the Deep State? Before, I thought you were just hiding in the basement; now, I see you'd be turning in those taking refuge in the attics while disarming the resistance. (And how soon does your "urging" everyone to convince Michael to get the vaccine turn to a forced vaccination, against his will, for "his own good"?)

You are a coward AND a traitor.

[ThatGuy]

"Stay calm, citizen; no need to arm yourselves; the National Guard will protect you..."

Minnesota National Guard Members Shot At In Drive By
 

The Minnesota National Guard was targeted in a drive by shooting in Minneapolis just hours after California Rep. Maxine Waters said that Black Lives Matter needs to be “more confrontational.”

The National Guard said that its members were, along with local police “providing neighborhood security” near Penn and Broadway avenue when people in an SUV opened fire on them, The Minnesota National Guard said on its website.

https://conservativebrief.com/minnesota-national-guard-38728/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=RP78

[ThatGuy]

 

[caroljane]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Here we go again. Another active shooting is going on in Texas. Rifles and pistols that have “magazines” allow angry or crazy people to murder more people, day after day, week after week. I am getting sick of it. And I am sick of being a standing target if I go to a store.  No, I am not advocating we stop distributing rifles, shotguns, or pistols in general; just those that can be used to murder larger numbers of people. The right to bear fire arms will not be infringed on if we ban assault weapons including pistols with magazines, just as America already banned machine guns. A six shooter is plenty. Just ask anyone from the old west. 

 

[caroljane]

What you said, Peter.

Yeah, I did say I sometimes thought you might be losing some of your small round hard thought facilitators, but you have still one and it is sterling silver and truer than gold.

Sorry to damage reputation by agreeing with you.There is always a price to pay for being right , and my approval on this will be your price,I guess. 

(

[ThatGuy]

Here's a woman with more balls than some men I know:
 

_{BREAKING: Marjorie Taylor Greene Will Introduce Resolution To Expel Maxine Waters From Congress After She Incites Riot}

_{Maxine Waters told rioters to "stay on the streets" and "get more confrontational" hours before someone tried to shoot a member of the National Guard.}

https://nationalfile.com/breaking-marjorie-taylor-greene-will-introduce-resolution-to-expel-maxine-waters-from-congress-after-she-incites-riot/

[caroljane]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

You mean bullying nonviolent citizens is rational, but bullying violent criminals is silly?

Think about what you are proposing.

Anyway, it's obvious we disagree on this.

Michael

This is what is so hard about talking to people trained in the Oist method of discussion , I cannot call it debate anymore because it obeys too few rules. 

The unequal either/or, yes/no question. All terms defined and contexted by the asker. All answers predetermined by theasker. Rhetoric at its lowest.

Clever semantics  as diversion. Cars do kill people, as does Scotch tape, household string, Lego, Coke cans, Crazy Glue, heavy industrial equipment (don't get me started , Memorial Day for workers killed on the job happens ironically to be my birthday, and my husband lost the sight of an eye in a work accident, ).. you know that people can kill themeselves in incredibly creative ways with unlikely materials,they can kill others in other unlikely ways with enough cunning,patience time and luck, maybe in ways we will never find out about. Accidents with cars and guns kill the most people . Neither the car nor the John Deere reaper nor Coke cans were invented or sold to be used as weapons. Exectutioners' swords, guilllotines andZyklon B were.  Guns were. They are designed to wound or kill living creatures as quickly and effectively as possible.

They are very, very good at it and getting better.You  know this, of course. Your nation is getting even better at enriching the modern day Krupp and vonThiessens , and watering your tree of liberty with other peoples' children. 

When you admit that A is A it is too easy to  end up "reasoning" away your heart and soul.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, caroljane said:

When you admit that A is A it is too easy to  end up "reasoning" away your heart and soul.

Carol,

Bullshit.

No you don't. I am not a fundy. I am not part of the O-Land story you had in the past. That's between you and you.

Your complaint is that I--and law-abiding independent thinking people--do not agree to be ruled by you and people you approve of because I have faulty thinking.

Double bullshit.

"Who is who" is a form of A is A.

In your world, who decides who gets guns or not. You? The oligarchy you support?

Yeah, right.

The heart and soul you argue for is that the oligarchy gets guns and law-abiding citizens don't. And we just don't think about the bad guys (who also get guns). After all, the bad guys are victims of the good guys at root. Right?

And what about the law abiding citizens who are victimized by the bad guys and the oligarchy? The ones robbed, killed, unjustly imprisoned, raped and maimed? In your world, what about them? Well, just fuck 'em. Right? They don't count. They are part of the oppressors anyway. So we just don't talk about them. They should be ashamed of themselves at the very least. They should just sit down and shut up.

Most of all, do not let them have guns to defend themselves.

You know why, too. Independent people of good will who are armed are awfully hard to rule by class warfare. By people you approve of to rule them.

So just let them suffer and don't think about it.

That, to me, is lack of heart and soul.

When you look at independent thinkers who opt for self-reliance, you don't see with your own eyes. I know this from the words you post. You see what you are told to see by the people running the core story in you brain and, despite being a good soul underneath, you learned hatred from them.

It's not black or white, either. It's young, healthy, strong-willed independent thinkers you are bigoted against. For instance, go back and read your first comments about Candace Owens. Sheer hatred. The way you talked, you did not want her to exist. Why? She is not part of the core story in your head. 

We almost got to the point of looking at sources of information (you know, using reason for real), but the core story honks louder in your brain than your eyes do. Instead of talking about sources (my question), which you actually started to do, you went off into how much Gaetz is despicable to you.

yawn...

I'm tired of constantly swatting at talking points anyone can find on a mainstream establishment TV news show. Meaning, I have tired of arguing against someone who sees only what she is supposed to see by her political agenda and nothing more.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

You are a coward AND a traitor.

TG,

That is not how you convince people.

It feels good, but there is context. Who are you talking to? A politician who is selling the USA out to China or a person who has been in and around O-Land for decades and is known for wavering on issues at times? Your comment goes well with the first, but with the second, it comes off as kicking the pet dog. (Not that Peter is a pet dog.  Maybe I should find a better metaphor.  )

That form of angry accusation is the way people of like Jon, who no longer posts here because I banned him at his own request (but is now sending me emails). 

That jerk does not want to change minds to make a better world. He wants to bully people who are fighting the good fight so he doesn't have to go and fight the real enemies.

It makes him feel good with low risk. It makes him feel more important than he is.

Peter is good people. I have great fondness for him and, in my world, we can disagree. Think about it. This is a discussion forum. If we don't discuss what we really think, we will never arrive at mutual agreement on anything. Just rulers and obeyers. That is Jon's utopia, with him being one of the rulers, of course.

And that is exactly what I am against with the elitist oligarchy.

That is what I am bitching to Carol about right now. Just as she doesn't see herself as a power grubber, Jon does not likewise see himself that way. But they are two sides of the same slave-master coin.

(Jon tells me I like Peter because he donates to OL and only that. Heh... I like Peter because he is an honest man of good will. So he's scared right now? So what? That's the real context. And this is when discussion is of greatest value to all. I would entrust my kids with Peter. I would never do that with bullies.)

Michael

[ThatGuy]

Michael, you have the patience of a saint. I admire that.

But as for persuasion or convincing: I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt, and consider their context. I have not seen that goodwill reciprocated. I have seen no evidence that certain people want to be convinced.  Or listen to, or address counter arguments. They'd rather preach. And insult while they preach (and I've never seen any apologies on that person's part, btw). And use strawman arguments to misrepresent other's arguments while they preach. Or resort to emotional blackmail, and undermine morale, while they insult and preach. All the while, playing the victim when they get called out on it. So be it. I've seen this kind of thing before. I know how it ends. (And, like you, I don't like bullies, whether they be of the physical kind or psychological kind.) So I don't try to persuade or convince those people. But I will not give them sanction, either. (It's been said that "Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." One has no moral requirement to convince a criminal or murderer. I'd extend the same logic to those who would advocate our disarmament in the service of criminals and murderers.)


"This is a discussion forum. If we don't discuss what we really think, we will never arrive at mutual agreement on anything."

I said what I said because that is what I really think. But I am under no illusion that it was bring myself to a mutual agreement with certain others. To quote Aristotle: "For though we love both the truth and our friends, piety requires us to honor the truth first."

Dealing with outright enemies is hard enough. But, to quote once more from JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR: "The end is just a little harder when brought about by friends."

I'm sorry it's come to this. And I am not Jon, and his speculations are his own. But at this stage, I, personally, am not willing to pretend I am having a discussion with certain people who refuse to have discussions.

That said, you've been a patient, gracious host, and I have no wish to stomp on your forum. So, then, that's the last thing I will say on the matter, here.

[caroljane]

Yes, I am tired too of the same thing, but if I can soldier on so can you.  IAm sorry I prevented you from talking about sources. I don't remember Candace Owens, but I will look that up and also apologize to her in absentia. To wish someone did not exist is the worst and lowest thing a mind can do, and I know that absolutely because the only person I have thought that about was myself, and only once, but It was plenty to be a touchstone in my intellectual and moral life. I have never thought that about a living person,and if I gave you that impression I was writing really badly when I did it.

 Or we could just say we disagree on this issue. I joined OL shortly before the GabbyGifford shooting. Someone thought she should not exist and had an easy way to make that happen. He failed, barely,but today, technology might have helped him to succeed. Trying to discuss that issue in real time was quite the baptism of fire for a newbie.  I have nothing new to say nojw since nothing new has happened since then, just more of the same old. I won't write on the subject again.

About sources I will go back and answer whatever you asked you asked , maybe not tonight but tomorrow.

 

[caroljane]

20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

And that is exactly what I am against with the elitist oligarchy.

That is what I am bitching to Carol about right now. Just as she doesn't see herself as a power grubber, Jon does not likewise see himself that way. But they are two sides of the same slave-master coin.

Michael

EEEEWWW

This. Is.Too . Much.

I don't know if,as a power grabber,I am a slave or a master in the elitist oligarchy any more, it doesn't matter.  Because I renounce wholly a system which would put me anywhere with laTourette, even though on opposite sides.

You win, I will stop being an oligarch or wanting to be, even unconsciously. I could never be a business oligarch anyway and the political ones who have their own countries are all foreign.