The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

Old subthreads
Locked
Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#481

Post by Brive1987 »

John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: At its simplest, American gun culture is just the normalisation of weapons (and their possession) by the ‘every-man’.

Believe it or not, this is not considered typical, sane or desirable by pretty much every other western society. Now that doesn’t mean guns have to be 100% banned. They are simply regarded as exotic and un-necessary by most and a risk to-boot.

But in the States, apparently there’s one next to every coffee maker in every house and that’s just peachy. So no wonder the tendency of many Americans to go full-on berko, quickly escalates to fire-fights in the streets.
There is a pretty broad view of guns in the US. You are a smart guy. You probably realize this but just want to be hyperbolic about the topics.

Many Americans are very negative toward guns. As a gun owner you have to be very careful with the topic. You will make many people scared even if you just talk about guns in a realistic way. People never talk about guns in the workplace. There will always be one person who even panics at the thought of a gun. You can see this in the media and it expresses itself in a strange way. We have lots of violence in our movies and such... but it is a strange kind of fantasy violence. Cops shoot people in the leg, or cops surrender their guns in a hostage situation. Somehow, Americans can handle this kind of media version of guns... but many can't handle a realistic idea of guns.

I know people who will not go into a house where there is a gun... even one locked in a safe. Many parents ask if a house has a gun before little Johnny can even come over to play. So, it is no so simple over here.

And... you never really see a gun except on a cop in public. Very very few people open carry. They do it to make a political point, but it is pretty uncommon. Open carry is a really stupid idea anyway. Open carry just scares people and allows bad guys to find a target whose gun the can steal.

There is a pile of people who are gun nuts. This is true. They go out in the woods and stage live fire training to practice for when the country is taken over by the UN or some such shit. This is true. It is pretty scary to most people. Lots of gun owners don't like this kind of thing. It just scares people and makes many people ask for more gun regulation.

I do think that many Americans think these LARPing militia types are part of gun culture. I guess they are... I don't know. Youall still haven't really given me a good definition of what "gun culture" is.... and why this horrible murder is somehow gun culture. That fact that this guy had a gun has little to do with the fact that these idiots were actively feuding. This is more like "honor culture" to me.... and honor culture is very common in America. Combine honor culture with gun availability and you get lots of murders.

The interblogs say this: the attitudes, feelings, values, and behaviour of a society, or any social group, in which guns are used

Which really doesn't mean anything.
Clearly I was generalising to the point of hyperbole. But to clarify the issue rather than troll.

My point is that to a more or lesser extent (the point on the spectrum doesn’t matter) guns are more normalised in law, society and popular expression in the USA as a whole than they are in any other western country.

Concealed carry, personal assault weapons, high capacity magazines, stand and defend, neighbours shooting each other just because .... these are well outside our culture but they are the unfortunate collateral of yours.

It doesn’t we are gun (or crime) free. But the distinction is real and pertinent. There is a gun culture in the US and it’s a distinctive part of who you are as a collective relative to say Wales or Denmark. 🤷‍♂️

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#482

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Brive1987 wrote: To be fair, there’s no evidence the Russkies were fuck ups - or out of their depth - which makes the incident all the more interesting.

These expeditions were considered normal rites of passage at the time. This party’s specific progress to date had been 100%. The diary records a strong group dynamic. They were on course and on track to their destination. They had, the day before, cached a good supply for the return trip. Their tent was effectively erected and positioned on a marginal-risk slope in reasonable weather. They were in the process of “boots off and eating” when the event occurred.
Their equipment was inadequate. Clothing was piecemeal mufti. Tent was two surplus army tents stitched together. The stove was cumbersome, jury-rigged and unsafe. Placed in the center of the long tent, those next to it roasted while those at the fard ends shivered.

They forgot to pack important supplies they meant to bring.

They ran out of food and money, so had to go hat-in-hand at a train station. As a result, one of them was detained by police for panhandling, delaying them by several hours.

That delay forced them to hitch. First an open-air ride in the back of a GAZ, during which several of them fell ill, then on a woodcutter's mule-drawn cart, though most of them had to trudge alongside.

They planned on staying in a remote mining camp and there restock supplies, only to find on arrival it was abandoned, with only a single, unheated building suitable for shelter.

The day before the incident, they encountered deep snow on the ground, which exhausted them and left them behind schedule. Instead of bivouacking in the woods with more snowfall threatening, they pressed on up the slope. Exhausted, they decided leave the stove behind.

Faulty orientation led them along the wrong path, which, on top of the day's slow progress, left them partway up the barren slope at dusk. Hastily, they had to shovel out a nook for the tent, which surely further exhausted them. With no stove that night, not only would they have been physically compromised, their outer garments would not have dried.

The prevailing theory is that cut in the snow on the slope directly led to the disaster.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#483

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Brive1987 wrote: At its simplest, American gun culture is just the normalisation of weapons (and their possession) by the ‘every-man’.

Believe it or not, this is not considered typical, sane or desirable by pretty much every other western society. Now that doesn’t mean guns have to be 100% banned. They are simply regarded as exotic and un-necessary by most and a risk to-boot.

But in the States, apparently there’s one next to every coffee maker in every house and that’s just peachy. So no wonder the tendency of many Americans to go full-on berko, quickly escalates to fire-fights in the streets.

--
My point is that to a more or lesser extent (the point on the spectrum doesn’t matter) guns are more normalised in law, society and popular expression in the USA as a whole than they are in any other western country.

Concealed carry, personal assault weapons, high capacity magazines, stand and defend, neighbours shooting each other just because .... these are well outside our culture but they are the unfortunate collateral of yours.

It doesn’t we are gun (or crime) free. But the distinction is real and pertinent. There is a gun culture in the US and it’s a distinctive part of who you are as a collective relative to say Wales or Denmark. 🤷‍♂️
Different countries have different cultures, Duh. I doubt that many Danes get bears in their kitchens, rattlers in their bathtubs, or mountain lions attacking their goats. And maybe gang-related crime and Mexican drug cartels are a big problem in Cardiff, I haven't heard.

Yet you continue to malign our "unfortunate", "undesirable" 'gun culture' while disparaging American gun owners as abnormal, insane, and short-tempered. You clearly believe guns to be "unnecessary" -- ergo, anyone who thinks they do need one must be touched in the head.

You dodged my challenge to quantify any of your half-baked pronouncements. So here are the numbers:
- 4 in 10 US households contain a firearm
- 350 to 400 million guns, more than one for every person
- c. 20,000 gun suicides p/a, yet US suicide rate the same as "pretty much every other western society"
- c. 10,000 crime-related gun deaths p/a, most of those gang-related
- 75-100 'mass shooting' deaths p/a
- c. 400 deaths p/a from accidental discharges, including two to three dozen minors

You can calculate the ratios, but it's clear that the prevalence of guns does not translate into a tsunami of blood and violence. On the contrary, law-abiding gun owners are incredibly safe and sane with their guns. Further, an estimated quarter million defensive uses of firearms occur each year. So much for the 'unnecessary' claim. Did I mention rattlesnakes?

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#484

Post by Really? »

Service Dog wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:00 am
Maxine Waters calls for Trump to be charged with 1st Degree 'Premeditated Murder" for "Advance Planning" of the "Invasion" of D.C.



Dear Muslima,
who was home, and not at the Capitol that day...


==

Chase Bank stops payment processing for Covfefe Coffee, for using a silly name to support Trump, not oppose him. In 2019, Amazon halted Covfefe Coffee's advertisements-- with the demand that Covfefe remove the American Flag from the ads.

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/02/05/c ... hy-n322597

==

Nancy Pelosi issues a formal statement describing to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as "(Q-CA)."

Pelosi's insult contradicts McCarthy's actual position of denouncing QAnon and condemning incoming republican Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), for posting QAnon conspiracy theories on her social media in 2018 & 2019.

McCarthy took to the podium to denounce Greene's pro-Q past, but at 2min13sec MSNBC interrupted the broadcast, to say McCarthy was lying:

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/02 ... -not-true/

==
Oh, you mean this Maxine Waters?


KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#485

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote:
John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: At its simplest, American gun culture is just the normalisation of weapons (and their possession) by the ‘every-man’.

Believe it or not, this is not considered typical, sane or desirable by pretty much every other western society. Now that doesn’t mean guns have to be 100% banned. They are simply regarded as exotic and un-necessary by most and a risk to-boot.

But in the States, apparently there’s one next to every coffee maker in every house and that’s just peachy. So no wonder the tendency of many Americans to go full-on berko, quickly escalates to fire-fights in the streets.
There is a pretty broad view of guns in the US. You are a smart guy. You probably realize this but just want to be hyperbolic about the topics.

Many Americans are very negative toward guns. As a gun owner you have to be very careful with the topic. You will make many people scared even if you just talk about guns in a realistic way. People never talk about guns in the workplace. There will always be one person who even panics at the thought of a gun. You can see this in the media and it expresses itself in a strange way. We have lots of violence in our movies and such... but it is a strange kind of fantasy violence. Cops shoot people in the leg, or cops surrender their guns in a hostage situation. Somehow, Americans can handle this kind of media version of guns... but many can't handle a realistic idea of guns.

I know people who will not go into a house where there is a gun... even one locked in a safe. Many parents ask if a house has a gun before little Johnny can even come over to play. So, it is no so simple over here.

And... you never really see a gun except on a cop in public. Very very few people open carry. They do it to make a political point, but it is pretty uncommon. Open carry is a really stupid idea anyway. Open carry just scares people and allows bad guys to find a target whose gun the can steal.

There is a pile of people who are gun nuts. This is true. They go out in the woods and stage live fire training to practice for when the country is taken over by the UN or some such shit. This is true. It is pretty scary to most people. Lots of gun owners don't like this kind of thing. It just scares people and makes many people ask for more gun regulation.

I do think that many Americans think these LARPing militia types are part of gun culture. I guess they are... I don't know. Youall still haven't really given me a good definition of what "gun culture" is.... and why this horrible murder is somehow gun culture. That fact that this guy had a gun has little to do with the fact that these idiots were actively feuding. This is more like "honor culture" to me.... and honor culture is very common in America. Combine honor culture with gun availability and you get lots of murders.

The interblogs say this: the attitudes, feelings, values, and behaviour of a society, or any social group, in which guns are used

Which really doesn't mean anything.
Clearly I was generalising to the point of hyperbole. But to clarify the issue rather than troll.

My point is that to a more or lesser extent (the point on the spectrum doesn’t matter) guns are more normalised in law, society and popular expression in the USA as a whole than they are in any other western country.

Concealed carry, personal assault weapons, high capacity magazines, stand and defend, neighbours shooting each other just because .... these are well outside our culture but they are the unfortunate collateral of yours.

It doesn’t we are gun (or crime) free. But the distinction is real and pertinent. There is a gun culture in the US and it’s a distinctive part of who you are as a collective relative to say Wales or Denmark. 🤷‍♂️
Yep. The fact that the gun lobby has so much political clout is due in part to the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#486

Post by KiwiInOz »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
John D wrote: We have lots of violence in our movies and such... but it is a strange kind of fantasy violence. Cops shoot people in the leg, or cops surrender their guns in a hostage situation.
Or even mo stupider, when half a dozen characters all draw their guns and point them, fingers on the triggers, at each other from about four feet away, until someone says, 'could everyone please slowly put down your guns?' and they all do.

Now, that scenario might be plausible were it a bunch of Australians, who, although as a nation are all crass, inbred drunkards, are also unarmed. 'Oy Mates? Put down the cayns of four ex?'
"After I finish my lahga, maybe, you bogan.' "Fuck you and your fat wombat wife.' 'I did have a root with your fat wife, you lazy derro.' And then they beat each other senseless with cans of beer. Okay maybe not so plausible.
No. This is quite plausible.

Your argument is invalid.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#487

Post by KiwiInOz »

Bhurzum wrote: Ya wee fuckin' beauty! Gerrit right up ye!

Woohoo. That'll teach em for Culloden.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#488

Post by Hunt »

Service Dog wrote: This claim is the exact opposite of what you claimed yesterday. Exact quote--> "There is just about as much connection between ACWTPS and Antifa as there is between ACWTPS and Proud Boys."
There is just about much connection made in the article between Protect the Vote to Antifa as to Proud Boys. That's what I was attempting to point out. I go on to propose, for the sake of argument, that Antifa is subordinate to Protect the Vote; what does that say about them, etc. In fact, this is exactly what I believe (as you know), except that it's not the organization you and Ngo envision, rather the domestic version.
Service Dog wrote: I already answered this: history is full of examples-- of the US backing violent tribal warlords, because we shared a common enemy. Arming the mujahideen jihadis against the Soviets does not render the mujahideen pro-democracy.
This is just-so story telling. You know there's an inherent contradiction here, and you're shoehorning this in as a quick fix. As the article points out the election was in peril; the people backing Protect the Vote genuinely believed American democracy was in peril, and they had a good case for it. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for an organization dedicated to the destruction of democracy. And yet...they complied with Democratic Party (or, strictly speaking Protect the Vote). Do you not see a massive contradiction here? If you want to tackle a massive lesion in Ngo's thesis, how 'bout starting there.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#489

Post by Hunt »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: On the contrary, law-abiding gun owners are incredibly safe and sane with their guns.
It's those pesky law breaking gun owners you have to watch out for.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#490

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Hunt wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:54 am
This is just-so story telling. You know there's an inherent contradiction here, and you're shoehorning this in as a quick fix. As the article points out the election was in peril; the people backing Protect the Vote genuinely believed American democracy was in peril, and they had a good case for it. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for an organization dedicated to the destruction of democracy. And yet...they complied with Democratic Party (or, strictly speaking Protect the Vote). Do you not see a massive contradiction here? If you want to tackle a massive lesion in Ngo's thesis, how 'bout starting there.
What case was there for the election being in peril, other than from Democratic Party lawsuits fucking with safeguards and mouthing off about Trump being a dictator? Your argument makes no sense. Ultimately Antifa wouldn't care much whether the Democrats or Trump steal an election, but maybe they though they could get further under a Democrat government. Who knows?

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#491

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Project implicate all opposition is getting dangerous, if it wasn't already. Nobody has even got to the bottom of who was at the Capitol riot, whether it was a mix of people with different objectives or one group, whether the violence was spontaneous or planned or what the objective was. That hasn't stopped the MSM, social media or Democratic politicians from hyping a completely amorphous threat narrative through the roof and using it to silence and, if possible, destroy any opposition to their rule. Nobody will tell you where this threat is coming from other than to say that people they want silenced are somehow associated with it.

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#492

Post by Bhurzum »

KiwiInOz wrote: Woohoo. That'll teach em for Culloden.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/VI2jp6o8 ... /giphy.gif

John D
.
.
Posts: 5966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#493

Post by John D »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Yep. The fact that the gun lobby has so much political clout is due in part to the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.
The gun lobby doesn't have that much clout. Well.... like everything else... it is complicated.

Right now many gun owners are totally pissed off at the NRA. They have become corrupt and have been taking money and doing little with it. They have not been filing any lawsuits recently... even over obvious violations of the law. They NRA needs to have its head cut off so they can start to fight for us again.

I think that left leaning media likes to blame the NRA for the reason they can't get more gun regulations. What this does politically is that it doesn't blame the members of the NRA... or gun owners in general... it blames an organization. By blaming the organization they can claim that the NRA is deceptive and evil while not calling gun owners evil. This technique was mastered in the 1980s and it is a go to for the left. Blame all gun issues on the NRA and claim the NRA is evil.

Gun owners still support the NRA because it is still the biggest group fighting for 2nd amendment rights. There are no good lobbies otherwise.

Responsible gun owners in the US don't like most of the gun restrictions being currently proposed. The left calls it "reasonable" gun legislation but this is bs. On the surface most of these "reasonable" laws seem to make sense... but... in practice they are all mostly shit.

I will take just one example. The proposal to limit magazine size. Some states have limits on magazine sizes. Usually something around 6 rounds. Sounds like a great idea. It will at least limit the damage a bad guy can do in a given time. But, in a pragmatic analysis, this kind of regulation will just hurt the good guys. The bad guys have too many options. A mass shooter can easily carry several weapons into a target space... like a school. There are no legal guns in schools so a bad guy has no worries about return fire. They have plenty of time to reload. Plenty of time to switch weapons. But, a good guy.... who follows the law... with have a very limited response even if they try to help. You are stuck with a 6 shot weapon. The pragmatic side of this regulation does nothing positive. Also, bad guys don't care about the law. They will carry extended mags if they want. They don't follow the fucking law.

Some states even restrict the use of hollow point bullets. This is really fucking retarded. In a defense situation hollow point is the only way to go. It causes more damage to the bad guy and its expansion means it is less likely to hurt and innocent. But, several states have made hollow points illegal because they are more damaging to the target... but... this is the hole fucking point. The whole point is to safely damage the bad guy and reduce damage to innocents.

So... I am kind of rambling. But... the devil is in the details. When you ask Americans if they want "reasonable" gun legislations they overwhelmingly say yes. But... what are these laws? How do they really work? Will they really help? Once Americans see the details they end up disagreeing with most leftist proposals. I am happy to discuss any specific legal proposal. I have seen very few that I like.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#494

Post by Service Dog »

Service Dog wrote: ↑
history is full of examples-- of the US backing violent tribal warlords, because we shared a common enemy.
Hunt wrote: This is just-so story telling. You know there's an inherent contradiction here, and you're shoehorning this in as a quick fix.
No. Your story is the childish fairy tale. In your version, there's a cartoon binary between Antifa Is 100% Uncontrollable vs. Antifa Is 100% Controlled by wiser heads.

When REALITY shows you an 'inherent contradiction' in your Either/Or, you fold your arms and shake your head, convinced that you're Mr. Logic. You're lost in a storybook.

Do you concede that many historic examples exist?-- cases of ostensible 'Good Guys' such as the police/ offering enticements to mafia Bad Guys, such as Dropping Charges in exchange for snitching. And sometimes the Bad Guy's opportunistic self-interest leads him to take the deal-- but keep doing Bad Guy crimes.

Your version reads like the crawl at the beginning of Star Wars. One Dimensional Jedi Knights vs. The Dark Side Of The Force...
Hunt wrote: ...the election was in peril;
the people backing Protect the Vote genuinely believed
American democracy was in peril, and they had a good case for it.
This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for an organization dedicated to the destruction of democracy.
.
.
.
And yet...they complied with Democratic Party (or, strictly speaking Protect the Vote). Do you not see a massive contradiction here? If you want to tackle a massive lesion in Ngo's thesis, how 'bout starting there.
You read a 6,000 word article and accepted it 100% at face value. You accepted that the TIME reporter speaks only god's honest truth, and her editors serve no interest but truth, and powerful people acting in secrecy with hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money-- acted selflessly. You believe 150 organizations-- mostly SJW-- such as BLM-the-organization-- prioritized "fairness" over "winning against Trump by any means necessary.

When TIME and their source at the data-harvesting/influence firm Catalist told you that Big Tech censoring the story of Hunter-Biden-Taking-Giant-Bribes-From-Foreign-Governments was "enforcing their own content rules" regarding "smears against candidates families"... you nodded right along.


Below is a link to two guys talking about the TIME report. Several times, they discuss "people who take this article entirely at face value..." So you should listen-to what they say about you, Hunt. While your butthole recovers from the swab & you struggle to breathe through 3 masks.

For those of us who thought the TIME report was sinister-- these guys do a good common-sense job of saying "hey, waitaminute", shining a light on the murky parts. And every few minutes, they go beyond common-sense and offer impressive insight. Such as asking-- 'what does it mean-- that Stacey Abrams is not mentioned in the article?'

The guy on the left was a bitcoin libertarian type, until recently he decided to go more-fringe-than-that-fringe. He's been reading Marx and the Bolsheviks and Mao-- and envisioning an un-Libertarian oxymoron path. Something like Thomas Jefferson with Stalin's willingness to crush enemies. The guy on the right is a former Las Vegas prostitute, with a goofy pornstar name. In the past, I've heard him sound-like one of those low-rent self-empowerment pick-up-artist seminar guys. I've heard him parrot sermons from Jordan Peterson, as if he's expressing his own original thoughts. But their quirks are a feature not a bug, this time: They're unabashed about departing from accepted narratives, and the TIME article is all accepted narrative. Also, they both Hate Trump in the non-TDS way: they think Trump was a useless decoy, thrown to the suckers, to appease them.


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#495

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Hunt wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: On the contrary, law-abiding gun owners are incredibly safe and sane with their guns.
It's those pesky law breaking gun owners you have to watch out for.
They're much easier to watch when you keep them behind bars, instead of letting them go all the time.



Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#496

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

KiwiInOz wrote: Yep. The fact that the gun lobby has so much political clout is due in part to the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.
Is that akin to the Australian mythos of a bunch of petty criminals and whores winning the wild Outback from the abos?

In your cartoon imagining of the "US Mythos", you neglect the long tradition of hunting in the midwest, south, and northeast. Not to mention the very foundation of our nation, which began with those minuteman/musket slingers on Lexington Green.

You've got actual American gun owners here, sharing our experiences and observations, yet you continue to form your opinion around Spaghetti Westerns.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#497

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Project implicate all opposition is getting dangerous, if it wasn't already. Nobody has even got to the bottom of who was at the Capitol riot, whether it was a mix of people with different objectives or one group, whether the violence was spontaneous or planned or what the objective was. That hasn't stopped the MSM, social media or Democratic politicians from hyping a completely amorphous threat narrative through the roof and using it to silence and, if possible, destroy any opposition to their rule. Nobody will tell you where this threat is coming from other than to say that people they want silenced are somehow associated with it.
The fanatical devotion of bushite neocons like Wallace to the neolib counter-reformation, tells you all you need to know about the lay of the political landscape.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#498

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:33 am
Hunt wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: On the contrary, law-abiding gun owners are incredibly safe and sane with their guns.
It's those pesky law breaking gun owners you have to watch out for.
They're much easier to watch when you keep them behind bars, instead of letting them go all the time.


Be fair! They took out all the stops with the McCloskeys and Rittenhouse. You can't go putting out fires in petrol stations, a common or garden American activist could get offended and try to stop you (permanently), which is all your fault so self-defence isn't allowed.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#499

Post by Service Dog »

KiwiInOz wrote: the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.
If only Hollywood would adopt a more woke, progressive perspective-- everything would turn-out fine.

They should try shaming the gun-owners for being stupid hicks.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#500

Post by John D »

Pondering the topic of guns and self defense in Merica....

Many trainers on the topic of defensive gun use in America explain that getting involved in third party conflict is very VERY risky. Rittenhouse got involved in a third party conflict. He was not protecting himself... or his family. He was reaching out. He was trying to act like the police.

Now... I am not saying he is wrong in what he did. I think he was within the law.... but... if you are gonna hang yourself out for someone you don't even know you are risking a lot.

You could get yourself trapped in a no win situation. You could get in trouble with the law...even if your actions are lawful. Remember that prosecutors are elected officials. They WILL prosecute you if they think it will help them get elected.

Now that I carry almost all the time I spend a lot of time thinking about what it means and what I will do if something comes up. Very complicated stuff. I run scenarios through my mind when I am just daydreaming so I get some sense of how to help... while not getting myself killed.


John D
.
.
Posts: 5966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#501

Post by John D »

Livin in America... ow!

Interesting view from self defense experts.


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#502

Post by Service Dog »

John D wrote: getting involved in third party conflict is very VERY risky. Rittenhouse got involved in a third party conflict. He was not protecting himself...
This explains why the prosecutors added the minor charge of 'violating curfew' to Rittenhouse, weeks-after all the serious charges were filed.

Rittenhouse WAS acting in self-defense, after he was attacked by the violent bald pedophile. And the street mob, the skateboard, & the antifa communist with a pistol.

To remove Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, the prosecution will claim that Rittenhouse waived his right to self-defense by violating curfew.

==
For me, a big part of 'spending a lot of time thinking about what carrying means, and what I will do if something comes up' revolved-around walking a 100-lb. vicious dog in crowded ghettos, for a decade and a half. Sometimes I was tempted to release the dog against people who threatened me. But the dog could get hurt & would be taken-away if he chased someone/ put-to-death if he bit them. If I assaulted the same guy, I'd spend a weekend in jail. Easy decision.

I gotta admit, over the years, in other (no-dog, no-gun) situations, I've sometimes semi-intentionally crossed the line to violence-- partially as a test, to see how the scenarios-in-my-mind matched with reality. Once, an angry driver tried to intimidate me by swerving into my lane. Rather than trying to avoid him, I cooly decided to let the crash happen. It worked out great, in terms of fucking up the other guy's car/ no damage to mine/ pissing the guy off/ the cops taking my side & telling the guy he could drive away with no police report & no insurance claim... or else go to jail. Backfired in the long run:

The 40 minute wait for the cops might have been the same 40 minutes my ex decided to become my ex. <--Plenty of valuable data for my mental scenarios.

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#503

Post by Bhurzum »

For Barn Owl (if he/she still lurks here?)



Those talons give me the willies!

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#504

Post by KiwiInOz »

John D wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
Yep. The fact that the gun lobby has so much political clout is due in part to the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.
The gun lobby doesn't have that much clout. Well.... like everything else... it is complicated.

Right now many gun owners are totally pissed off at the NRA. They have become corrupt and have been taking money and doing little with it. They have not been filing any lawsuits recently... even over obvious violations of the law. They NRA needs to have its head cut off so they can start to fight for us again.

I think that left leaning media likes to blame the NRA for the reason they can't get more gun regulations. What this does politically is that it doesn't blame the members of the NRA... or gun owners in general... it blames an organization. By blaming the organization they can claim that the NRA is deceptive and evil while not calling gun owners evil. This technique was mastered in the 1980s and it is a go to for the left. Blame all gun issues on the NRA and claim the NRA is evil.

Gun owners still support the NRA because it is still the biggest group fighting for 2nd amendment rights. There are no good lobbies otherwise.

Responsible gun owners in the US don't like most of the gun restrictions being currently proposed. The left calls it "reasonable" gun legislation but this is bs. On the surface most of these "reasonable" laws seem to make sense... but... in practice they are all mostly shit.

I will take just one example. The proposal to limit magazine size. Some states have limits on magazine sizes. Usually something around 6 rounds. Sounds like a great idea. It will at least limit the damage a bad guy can do in a given time. But, in a pragmatic analysis, this kind of regulation will just hurt the good guys. The bad guys have too many options. A mass shooter can easily carry several weapons into a target space... like a school. There are no legal guns in schools so a bad guy has no worries about return fire. They have plenty of time to reload. Plenty of time to switch weapons. But, a good guy.... who follows the law... with have a very limited response even if they try to help. You are stuck with a 6 shot weapon. The pragmatic side of this regulation does nothing positive. Also, bad guys don't care about the law. They will carry extended mags if they want. They don't follow the fucking law.

Some states even restrict the use of hollow point bullets. This is really fucking retarded. In a defense situation hollow point is the only way to go. It causes more damage to the bad guy and its expansion means it is less likely to hurt and innocent. But, several states have made hollow points illegal because they are more damaging to the target... but... this is the hole fucking point. The whole point is to safely damage the bad guy and reduce damage to innocents.

So... I am kind of rambling. But... the devil is in the details. When you ask Americans if they want "reasonable" gun legislations they overwhelmingly say yes. But... what are these laws? How do they really work? Will they really help? Once Americans see the details they end up disagreeing with most leftist proposals. I am happy to discuss any specific legal proposal. I have seen very few that I like.
Hi JD. I actually agree that it is complicated (just don't tell Matt or Doggie that I said so). My view of the NRA is that they are industry shills who have convinced many gun owners that they are grass roots fighters for American Constitutional rights to gun ownership because these are under threat. In reality they are no better than drug pushers or priests who create a dependency and keep on draining the hip pocket of those who can often least afford it. I don't have a problem with marketing or lobbying organisations per se,but I do have a problem with astroturfers whose stock in trade is FUD for profit.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#505

Post by KiwiInOz »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote: Yep. The fact that the gun lobby has so much political clout is due in part to the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.
Is that akin to the Australian mythos of a bunch of petty criminals and whores winning the wild Outback from the abos?

In your cartoon imagining of the "US Mythos", you neglect the long tradition of hunting in the midwest, south, and northeast. Not to mention the very foundation of our nation, which began with those minuteman/musket slingers on Lexington Green.

You've got actual American gun owners here, sharing our experiences and observations, yet you continue to form your opinion around Spaghetti Westerns.
I learn all of my facts and history from fiction.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#506

Post by Service Dog »



KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#507

Post by KiwiInOz »

Service Dog wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote: the US mythos, including of the cowboy/gun slinger winning the wild West from the injuns.
If only Hollywood would adopt a more woke, progressive perspective-- everything would turn-out fine.

They should try shaming the gun-owners for being stupid hicks.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#508

Post by Service Dog »


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#509

Post by Service Dog »

Pro-Trump rapper just had every song pulled from Spotify and Apple Music.

for this?...


or THIS.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#510

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

John D wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:48 am
Pondering the topic of guns and self defense in Merica....

Many trainers on the topic of defensive gun use in America explain that getting involved in third party conflict is very VERY risky. Rittenhouse got involved in a third party conflict. He was not protecting himself... or his family. He was reaching out. He was trying to act like the police.

Now... I am not saying he is wrong in what he did. I think he was within the law.... but... if you are gonna hang yourself out for someone you don't even know you are risking a lot.

You could get yourself trapped in a no win situation. You could get in trouble with the law...even if your actions are lawful. Remember that prosecutors are elected officials. They WILL prosecute you if they think it will help them get elected.

Now that I carry almost all the time I spend a lot of time thinking about what it means and what I will do if something comes up. Very complicated stuff. I run scenarios through my mind when I am just daydreaming so I get some sense of how to help... while not getting myself killed.

Rittenhouse was acting responsibly. His objectives in being there were to provide first aid to anyone who got hurt and to protect a friend's business. He found himself in a position to preempt the danger of a gasoline explosion. I don't see how it is possible to charge someone for that and defending themselves when attacked. It appears that he was not the first to fire a shot. He did not confront anyone before being attacked and all of his subsequent actions were aimed at extricating himself alive. You are right, he wasn't protecting himself or his family, he was looking out for others which makes him courageous and selfless.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#511

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote: To remove Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, the prosecution will claim that Rittenhouse waived his right to self-defense by violating curfew.
Pretty sure you don't lose the right to self defence for violating curfew. At worst you might be required to clearly be attempting to utilize opportunities to retreat/de-escalate where previously that wasn't necessary. It seems to me that they are going to have to argue some combination of 1. he was not attempting to retreat. 2. he didn't have a reasonable belief that his life we in imminent peril if Rosenbaum got the gun. 3. Possibly also that the people who attacked him were provoked to do so by the criminal activity that is being used to justify requiring him to retreat/de-escalate.

Based on the above, I would imagine they are going to argue that Rosenbaum was trying to be a good samaritan by attempting to tackle an illegally armed, curfew violating potential shooter. They will argue that any belief Rittenhouse may have had that Rosenbaum was a violent rioter who meant him harm was unreasonable, and presumably due to his militia fantasies. He didn't retreat from Rosenbaum. He was running, probably to shoot people as he subsequently did, and Rosenbaum gave chase. When the encounter between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum to place, Rittenhouse made not attempt to de-escalate, instead he turned on Rosenbaum. Naturally Rosenbaum tried to save himself by grabbing the gun, but was too slow.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#512

Post by Service Dog »

I don't think they'll try-for 'Rosenbaum was the good guy', faf. Too much of a stretch.

I hope you're right that breaking curfew doesn't void self-defense. Even if self-defense remains-- curfew might nibble at how clear-cut self-defense is.

Discard my previous guess-- and try this on: they try to use breaking-curfew to say he was committing-a-crime while carrying the gun.

Without that, their claim that it wasn't legal for him to have the gun-- is weak.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#513

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Service Dog wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:06 pm
I don't think they'll try-for 'Rosenbaum was the good guy', faf. Too much of a stretch.

I hope you're right that breaking curfew doesn't void self-defense. Even if self-defense remains-- curfew might nibble at how clear-cut self-defense is.

Discard my previous guess-- and try this on: they try to use breaking-curfew to say he was committing-a-crime while carrying the gun.

Without that, their claim that it wasn't legal for him to have the gun-- is weak.
I don't think that the legality of the weapon affects a self-defence claim. The fact that you all are discussing ways that the prosecution will try to convict him shows how political this is. They could just as well be treating Rittenhouse as the victim of assault and attempted murder and going after the accessories.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#514

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

I am hanging my head in shame for typing "you all" instead of "all of you" or "you are all". Nearly as bad as "where you?" which drives me mental.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#515

Post by Service Dog »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: how political this is
Totally agree. And the prosecutors declined to prosecute Jacob Blake and the officer who shot him. So Kenosha was burned down over nothing, but Rittenhouse is stuck facing charges.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#516

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:06 pm
I don't think they'll try-for 'Rosenbaum was the good guy', faf. Too much of a stretch.

I hope you're right that breaking curfew doesn't void self-defense. Even if self-defense remains-- curfew might nibble at how clear-cut self-defense is.

Discard my previous guess-- and try this on: they try to use breaking-curfew to say he was committing-a-crime while carrying the gun.

Without that, their claim that it wasn't legal for him to have the gun-- is weak.
I think this is the relevant law in Wisconsin:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

The most relevant sections seem to be these:
"(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

and

"(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
939.48(1m)(ar)1.1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time."

"(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."

Based on that, what ever criminality Rittenhouse may have been up to just means that it becomes a question for the court about whether he made a reasonable attempt to flee and he would have the burden of proof to prove that his fears for his safety were reasonable.

My take is that politically, he had to be charged with murder. The only way you get to a murder charge is if he wasn't attempting to get out of the situation, his fears for his safety weren't reasonable, and potentially that he provoked the people who attacked him through his criminality. Does the plausibility of the charge really matter? How many people are going to play amateur detective and look beyond the headlines?

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#517

Post by Hunt »

Service Dog wrote: Your version reads like the crawl at the beginning of Star Wars. One Dimensional Jedi Knights vs. The Dark Side Of The Force...
Hunt wrote: ↑
...the election was in peril;
the people backing Protect the Vote genuinely believed
American democracy was in peril, and they had a good case for it.
This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for an organization dedicated to the destruction of democracy.
That would actually be better than any Star Wars movie since 1983.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#518

Post by Hunt »

Service Dog wrote: The guy on the left was a bitcoin libertarian type, until recently he decided to go more-fringe-than-that-fringe. He's been reading Marx and the Bolsheviks and Mao-- and envisioning an un-Libertarian oxymoron path. Something like Thomas Jefferson with Stalin's willingness to crush enemies. The guy on the right is a former Las Vegas prostitute, with a goofy pornstar name.
Well don't sing their praises too much.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#519

Post by Hunt »

Service Dog wrote: So you should listen-to what they say about you, Hunt.
My notes:

Protect the Vote was concerned about mail in voting long before Covid because Trump gave hints that he distrusted absentee voting -- probably as a deliberate strategy to limit the predominantly Democratic mail-in votes. It had nothing to do with Covid-19. It was a key was a key issue they knew Trump was going to challenge. Any extemporizing about Covid-19 along these lines is post-facto reasoning, and fallacious.

Ram Emanuel's point about never letting a good crisis go to waste is exactly my point that if Antifa was looking for an ideal opportunity to overthrow American democracy, they seriously dropped the ball during the Trump reelection.

I will admit that the "cabal" language was unfortunate, but "cabal" is just a word. An organization formed to ensure a fair vote is not diabolical just because one writer uses an unfortunate word.

Again, defending an election is NOT the same as determining an outcome.

There should have been transparency: Again we're at the whimsey of the Time article writer(s), and the language they use. Did they employ secret code words? Just how secretive was this movement, and does it actually matter? Was it illegal?

Trump wanted every "legal" vote counted. Trump wanted to nullify mail in votes. Mail in voting is an accepted element of our election process.

Trump didn't follow all the regular avenues to redress a contested vote. Just one example: he personally attempted to strongarm Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn his defeat in Georgia.

"it was a takeover and now they're telling everyone they're in control" Pure, unsupported assertion.

"Ensure the proper result" actually meant "Biden wins" See above.

About the porn star's version of Capitol assault. Again, this is purely speculative. That the Capitol was purposely left undefended is a pretty heady accusation. Again (what's the count?) this is conspiracy nonsense. Anyone can make these assertions. For some people, the more brazen the claim, the more likely. This is unfortunately part of human psychology. It's why tabloid press is popular.

So I see two guys very upset that an organization was formed to counter the shenanigans that Trump pre-announced he was going to attempt. He said he would accept a result that reelected himself. How exactly does that not call for a counter response?

BTW, the porn star doesn't hate Trump. Even a dupe like me can see that.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#520

Post by fafnir »

Hunt wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:44 am
Ram Emanuel's point about never letting a good crisis go to waste is exactly my point that if Antifa was looking for an ideal opportunity to overthrow American democracy, they seriously dropped the ball during the Trump reelection.
Antifa don't remotely have the power to overthrow democracy. They couldn't overthrow a city block if it wasn't convenient for the people actually in charge of the city block to allow them to.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#521

Post by Hunt »

fafnir wrote:
Hunt wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:44 am
Ram Emanuel's point about never letting a good crisis go to waste is exactly my point that if Antifa was looking for an ideal opportunity to overthrow American democracy, they seriously dropped the ball during the Trump reelection.
Antifa don't remotely have the power to overthrow democracy. They couldn't overthrow a city block if it wasn't convenient for the people actually in charge of the city block to allow them to.
Well, yeah, that's another point. I suppose the distinction can be made between "destroying democracy" and overthrowing the American government. Any group wanting to do that has to be playing the really, reaaaally loooooong game. Destroying American democracy is a slightly less dramatic option. But conservatively speaking, the 2020 election was probably the best opportunity anyone has ever had to do it, or at least throw a monkey wrench in its operations.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#522

Post by fafnir »

Hunt wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Hunt wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:44 am
Ram Emanuel's point about never letting a good crisis go to waste is exactly my point that if Antifa was looking for an ideal opportunity to overthrow American democracy, they seriously dropped the ball during the Trump reelection.
Antifa don't remotely have the power to overthrow democracy. They couldn't overthrow a city block if it wasn't convenient for the people actually in charge of the city block to allow them to.
Well, yeah, that's another point. I suppose the distinction can be made between "destroying democracy" and overthrowing the American government. Any group wanting to do that has to be playing the really, reaaaally loooooong game. Destroying American democracy is a slightly less dramatic option. But conservatively speaking, the 2020 election was probably the best opportunity anyone has ever had to do it, or at least throw a monkey wrench in its operations.
OK, if we are going for pedantry... what could antifa possibly have done to overthrow American democracy? They only got to do the things they did because the people who are in charge chose to allow it. Going beyond Antifa... what do you mean by overthrow American democracy? Do you mean physically overthrow it with rioters mounting the barricades? Do you mean in court? How? No force not already in power and with institutional support has the capacity to overthrow democracy in the US.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#523

Post by fafnir »

Of the top of my head, it seems to me that there are two ways that democracy gets overthrown in a country. 1. When the people who control the administration of the elections cheat. 2. When there is institutional support in key areas of government for democracy to be overthrown.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#524

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Hunt wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:44 am
Service Dog wrote: So you should listen-to what they say about you, Hunt.
My notes:

Protect the Vote was concerned about mail in voting long before Covid because Trump gave hints that he distrusted absentee voting -- probably as a deliberate strategy to limit the predominantly Democratic mail-in votes. It had nothing to do with Covid-19. It was a key was a key issue they knew Trump was going to challenge. Any extemporizing about Covid-19 along these lines is post-facto reasoning, and fallacious.

Ram Emanuel's point about never letting a good crisis go to waste is exactly my point that if Antifa was looking for an ideal opportunity to overthrow American democracy, they seriously dropped the ball during the Trump reelection.

I will admit that the "cabal" language was unfortunate, but "cabal" is just a word. An organization formed to ensure a fair vote is not diabolical just because one writer uses an unfortunate word.

Again, defending an election is NOT the same as determining an outcome.

There should have been transparency: Again we're at the whimsey of the Time article writer(s), and the language they use. Did they employ secret code words? Just how secretive was this movement, and does it actually matter? Was it illegal?

Trump wanted every "legal" vote counted. Trump wanted to nullify mail in votes. Mail in voting is an accepted element of our election process.

Trump didn't follow all the regular avenues to redress a contested vote. Just one example: he personally attempted to strongarm Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn his defeat in Georgia.

"it was a takeover and now they're telling everyone they're in control" Pure, unsupported assertion.

"Ensure the proper result" actually meant "Biden wins" See above.

About the porn star's version of Capitol assault. Again, this is purely speculative. That the Capitol was purposely left undefended is a pretty heady accusation. Again (what's the count?) this is conspiracy nonsense. Anyone can make these assertions. For some people, the more brazen the claim, the more likely. This is unfortunately part of human psychology. It's why tabloid press is popular.

So I see two guys very upset that an organization was formed to counter the shenanigans that Trump pre-announced he was going to attempt. He said he would accept a result that reelected himself. How exactly does that not call for a counter response?

BTW, the porn star doesn't hate Trump. Even a dupe like me can see that.
What a fine exemplar of the kind of stuff that horses leave behind, big steaming piles of it. The Democrats announced how they were going to steal the election, set the scene and poisoned the media well, then did it. Fits the facts even better than your scenario. Trump issued his warnings AFTER the Democrats and their proxies started their fraud enabling litigation and bogus alarm raising. After what the Dems had already tried to do to remove him Trump's suspicions were not unreasonable and if you were trying to steal an election and enable fraud you'd target exactly aspects of the voting system they did,the election would go exactly the way it did, and the anomalies in the swing states would be as they were. The electoral process does not end with the vote count, that is the beginning of the process, and this cabal actually admits to trying to short-circuit the process. As usual Trump stuck with the constitutional process and his haters decided that constitutional processes don't apply when inconvenient, a constant theme with them.

Love how they start out with the bi-partisan fig leaf but at the end there are warnings to Biden that he'd better remember who had his back.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#525

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

And I forgot to add that there is absolutely no requirement for Trump to accept the result before the end of the entire process. He never expressed any intention to do anything other than see the process through to the end and the hysterical BS from the Dems relies on people not understanding the full process.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#526

Post by fafnir »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:22 am
And I forgot to add that there is absolutely no requirement for Trump to accept the result before the end of the entire process. He never expressed any intention to do anything other than see the process through to the end and the hysterical BS from the Dems relies on people not understanding the full process.
Isn't this the game repeated over and over? Changing the constitution is hard and requires a consensus, so now we have activist judges who know what they the constitution should say and then find a way of interpreting it to say that. Changing laws can be tricky and requires consensus, so we just decide to not to follow those laws. Changing the rules can be bothersome, so ignore them and call anybody who complains racist.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#527

Post by fafnir »

Stick to the rules and you get accused of trying to undermine the game.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#528

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

fafnir wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:37 am
Stick to the rules and you get accused of trying to undermine the game.
Precisely. because the new game is always the shiny new ultra-progressive one. Constitutions, universal rights and norms of behaviour are so yesterday. Campus politics has gone national.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#529

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

More legislative absurdity, batshit enforcement of gender ideology that steamrollers over rights and forces approval.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#530

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote:
John D wrote: getting involved in third party conflict is very VERY risky. Rittenhouse got involved in a third party conflict. He was not protecting himself...
This explains why the prosecutors added the minor charge of 'violating curfew' to Rittenhouse, weeks-after all the serious charges were filed.
It was an unwise choice -- which I lay at his mama's feet -- to place yourself, while armed, at a time and place where the likelihood of violent confrontation was high. You automatically make any fight that breaks out a gun fight. As my instructor always says: the best way to win the fight is to not be there for the fight. I've heard others advise: don't go to stupid places with stupid people who do stupid things.

Carrying really drives these messages home. No road rage, no response to road rage, just ignore nasty comments, wave and smile, walk away, let the Wookie win. Definitely don't shovel snow into your neighbor's driveway then call him a fucktard.

Rittenhouse WAS acting in self-defense, after he was attacked by the violent bald pedophile. And the street mob, the skateboard, & the antifa communist with a pistol.
Precisely. Even use of an illegally-possessed weapon does not abrogate one's right to self-defense.

To remove Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, the prosecution will claim that Rittenhouse waived his right to self-defense by violating curfew.
Can't wait to see that argument floated in a rape trial.


Once, an angry driver tried to intimidate me by swerving into my lane. Rather than trying to avoid him, I cooly decided to let the crash happen. It worked out great, in terms of fucking up the other guy's car/ no damage to mine/ pissing the guy off/ the cops taking my side & telling the guy he could drive away with no police report & no insurance claim... or else go to jail. Backfired in the long run:

The 40 minute wait for the cops might have been the same 40 minutes my ex decided to become my ex. <--Plenty of valuable data for my mental scenarios.
Long, long time ago, in heavy main street rush hour traffic, some idiot whipped out of a parking spot, cut across both lanes to slide inches in front of me. No blinker. So I laid on the horn. So he brake-jobbed me. Bam. We got out. He was steaming. I peered down at my front grill and said, 'lucky for you it's just a small dent.' He started screaming and fuming. 'What? You ran into me motherfucker! yada yada, I'm calling the cops.' I said, please do, so I can tell them how you cut across two lanes with no signal, then brake-jobbed me, which is a felony - I exaggerated with the felony part. He grew pale, mumbled 'fucking asshole', got into his car and drove away. My GF at the time provided moral support by slouching her 5'9" frame as low as it would go below the dash.

Anyway, nowadays I would NOT blow my horn, cuz that driver could just have easily been a hot-headed psycho instead of a loudmouthed pussy. And then I might end up having to shoot him.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#531

Post by Service Dog »

Hunt insists the election Conspiracy acted only to ensure fairness and democracy.

But the actual behavior of the Conspirators-- proves Hunt wrong.

The TIME report ends on January 6. The Conspiracy didn't stop there.

The same individuals and organizations named in the article-- proceeded to delete the 500,000 testimonials from the Walk Away project Facebook group.

They data-mined profiled the bank accounts of millions of Bank of America customers (BofA is an "active partner" of the US Chamber of Commerce), then handed those bank records to the FBI-- who investigated and visited the homes of people who didn't even attend the Jan 6. march and were accused of no crime.

The conspiracy's corporate news media partners pumped-out a one-sided propaganda party line, that anyone who questioned the fairness of the 2020 election & seeks to reform the system-- is Anti-Election Fairness. And is a violent white supremacist insurrectionist whose guns should be taken-away. And their job, too.

Remember this video, alleging that Trump leads a "Secret Army"? Which should be hunted and outed by vigilantes?
Not only is the video still available on YouTube, it now has an Official YouTube info-box below it-- endorsing the video's paranoid allegations as factual:




Hunt doesn't limit himself to covering-up the wrongdoing of the 'respectable' side of the Conspiracy.

Hunt PRETENDS the violent street riot contingent-- is merely 'an ideology' and a 'garden-variety' 'activist movement'.

By their own admission, the members of "acceptable" protest groups-- disguise themselves in black masks and hoodies, to commit mass Violence, Destruction and Insurrection:

"One facet of this movement (specifically of the revolutionary anarchist movement) is encapsulated and advanced by the militant actions of a group commonly referred to as the Black Bloc. This informal grouping has acted as a necessary radical action wing of the larger social protest movement. Where liberal inclinations have threatened to stifle large demonstrations under a blanket of acceptability, predictability and boredom, this contingent—numbering anywhere from less than 100 to over 1000 in a typical Bloc—has forced a creative unleashing of popular insurrectionary sentiment."


The author of that blue paragraph is the current President of the Vermont AFL-CIO, an out-and-proud veteran of many Black Bloc riots, author of Antifa's training materials on Black Bloc tactics.

His writings are promulgated by The Anarchists Library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/categor ... black-bloc

There, he tells us:

With their identities effectively hidden in temporary uniformity, they were able to more successfully push protest actions in more militant directions
....
those making up the Bloc commonly were rooted in the social and political organizations and projects
....
More than acting as shock troops, or defensive units within the larger protest contingent, the Bloc began to take on an offensive role regarding the conscious destruction of capitalist private property. Here, affinity groups within the Bloc would facilitate the smashing of windows, spray painting of revolutionary messages, and trashing of police and/or military vehicles. Of course, all such activity was clearly directed against capitalist targets.
....
Another function of the Black Bloc is to push the protest at hand towards a more militant and socially comprehensive direction. Largely this was achieved by the Bloc positioning itself at the forefront of the demonstration and subsequently forcing an escalation between the state forces and the protesters. Simply by resisting arrest, refusing to remain on sanctioned parade routes, challenging police barricades, and by actively directing its anger at corporate targets, the Bloc ensured that such an escalation would ensue.

The purpose of such escalation in part lies in the belief that such conflict necessarily results in the unmasking of the brutal nature of the state. The subsequent brutality of the opposing police/military force is revealed. The idea is that by showing the larger population the violent means by which the status quo is maintained, a significant number of people will become further radicalized by this physical and visual demonstration of the nature of the State. Escalation also has a desired effect of forcing an action to transcend its often liberal underpinnings and become an actual example of contextually conditioned revolt. Direct action expands past the confines of simple symbolism and then delves into the very real territory of subjective and objective revolutionary insurrection.
....
The practice of such Blocs are as socially/psychologically healthy as they are real. In this capacity, persons claiming to be of the left, or even anarchists, which argue against the need for a Black Bloc, or that the Bloc is socially and/or tactically ineffectual, must be understood as persons who either do not understand the subjective dynamic of revolt, or ones who are so weighed down in indecision and tacit acceptance of the status quo that they must be considered ignorant at best, or the enemy at worst. These folk would substitute another generation of ideological debate, meetings and boredom for real action.


If Hunt finds all-this uncompelling, I am left wondering: what ¿exactly? would Antifa have to do or say, to change Hunt's mind about them?
What would TIME's conspiracy have-to have-done, to introduce doubt in Hunt's mind, about their pristine pursuit of noble motives?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#532

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

KiwiInOz wrote: I actually agree .... (just don't tell Matt or Doggie that I said so).

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#533

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

fafnir wrote: At worst you might be required to clearly be attempting to utilize opportunities to retreat/de-escalate where previously that wasn't necessary. It seems to me that they are going to have to argue some combination of 1. he was not attempting to retreat....
No duty to retreat in WI, but the video footage of KR hauling ass while Pedobaum chases him pretty much nixes that anyway.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#534

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

fafnir wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:57 am
Of the top of my head, it seems to me that there are two ways that democracy gets overthrown in a country. 1. When the people who control the administration of the elections cheat. 2. When there is institutional support in key areas of government for democracy to be overthrown.
A good start is to undermine the authority of the police, make property damage and assault more acceptable as tools, erode faith in the ability of the state to provide protection and dispense justice fairly, weaken the national identity with actions such as blurring the line between citizens and non-citizens and by opening borders. All those good things and anything else in a similar vein. Of course Antifa can't stage an armed revolution, but they sure as hell are trying to steer everything toward their end goal and poison the relationship between the youth and the state.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#535

Post by Service Dog »

Moldbug talks about an old photo-- of union workers protesting-- in South Africa during Apartheid.

The Communist organizers' goal was to steer the union workers into becoming *Communist* union workers, By Any Means Necessary.

So the Commies positioned themselves as sympathetic to the white union members whose wages were undercut by non-union blacks.

The commune-ized workers marched with a sign: "Workers of the World Unite!" And under that: "To Keep South Africa White!"

Communism is the cure that heals all wounds. And The Struggle is always Urgent! More urgent than any reason to hesitate.
So no guise is too immoral to wear. Just trust that the magic of communism will sort it out, eventually.

Revolution Now!
Think Later! (or not.)

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#536

Post by Keating »

KiwiInOz wrote: I learn all of my facts and history from fiction.
I get my facts from slash fiction.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#537

Post by Keating »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: More legislative absurdity, batshit enforcement of gender ideology that steamrollers over rights and forces approval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhq7xuCQpAM
Yeah, this passed last Thursday. Should have nuked them earlier.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#538

Post by fafnir »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:24 am
fafnir wrote: At worst you might be required to clearly be attempting to utilize opportunities to retreat/de-escalate where previously that wasn't necessary. It seems to me that they are going to have to argue some combination of 1. he was not attempting to retreat....
No duty to retreat in WI, but the video footage of KR hauling ass while Pedobaum chases him pretty much nixes that anyway.
I'm sure there is some version of the They Live! glasses that, if you put them on, Rittenhouse isn't retreating, Rosenbaum is a good samaritan violent pedophile arsonist and what we see is a boy hunting protesters for sport and a brave hero trying to stop him.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#539

Post by Brive1987 »

If you are after a tactical, detailed and engaging analysis of Isandlwana - try this one.



Very strong on terrain and tactical reconstruction of the various manoeuvres and final collapse. Weaker on personal bias - very pro 24th and anti Durnford.

At a higher operation level, he never really explains why Pulleine thought a 900m long extended line with open flank and rear was a great idea.

The right may have been originally anchored on a small hill. But that hill was an island on the plain. It was dumb luck that Durnford withdrew to the creek line and held the flank for as long as he did.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#540

Post by Brive1987 »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: At its simplest, American gun culture is just the normalisation of weapons (and their possession) by the ‘every-man’.

Believe it or not, this is not considered typical, sane or desirable by pretty much every other western society. Now that doesn’t mean guns have to be 100% banned. They are simply regarded as exotic and un-necessary by most and a risk to-boot.

But in the States, apparently there’s one next to every coffee maker in every house and that’s just peachy. So no wonder the tendency of many Americans to go full-on berko, quickly escalates to fire-fights in the streets.

--
My point is that to a more or lesser extent (the point on the spectrum doesn’t matter) guns are more normalised in law, society and popular expression in the USA as a whole than they are in any other western country.

Concealed carry, personal assault weapons, high capacity magazines, stand and defend, neighbours shooting each other just because .... these are well outside our culture but they are the unfortunate collateral of yours.

It doesn’t we are gun (or crime) free. But the distinction is real and pertinent. There is a gun culture in the US and it’s a distinctive part of who you are as a collective relative to say Wales or Denmark. 🤷‍♂️
Different countries have different cultures, Duh. I doubt that many Danes get bears in their kitchens, rattlers in their bathtubs, or mountain lions attacking their goats. And maybe gang-related crime and Mexican drug cartels are a big problem in Cardiff, I haven't heard.

Yet you continue to malign our "unfortunate", "undesirable" 'gun culture' while disparaging American gun owners as abnormal, insane, and short-tempered. You clearly believe guns to be "unnecessary" -- ergo, anyone who thinks they do need one must be touched in the head.

You dodged my challenge to quantify any of your half-baked pronouncements. So here are the numbers:
- 4 in 10 US households contain a firearm
- 350 to 400 million guns, more than one for every person
- c. 20,000 gun suicides p/a, yet US suicide rate the same as "pretty much every other western society"
- c. 10,000 crime-related gun deaths p/a, most of those gang-related
- 75-100 'mass shooting' deaths p/a
- c. 400 deaths p/a from accidental discharges, including two to three dozen minors

You can calculate the ratios, but it's clear that the prevalence of guns does not translate into a tsunami of blood and violence. On the contrary, law-abiding gun owners are incredibly safe and sane with their guns. Further, an estimated quarter million defensive uses of firearms occur each year. So much for the 'unnecessary' claim. Did I mention rattlesnakes?
My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences. The video was an objectively negative consequence. The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.

The statistics you rolled out to knock down your strawman merely make my original point. Thank you.

Locked