I don’t get why people haven’t spammed the twitter about how fucking stupid and useless it is. I know this thread isn’t going to catch on but I fucking hate how people think that this will change anything or make anything better.
March for our lives
Camden Collins
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jayden Johnson
Want some more?
Matthew Brown
It’s just fucking autistic in general. The one girl (pic related) admitted to bullying the school shooter but still blamed it on guns
Andrew Bailey
Camden Jones
Libtards conceal the fact that Europe has more mass shootings than we do. It doesn't fit the narrative.
Elijah Ramirez
Everyone with a controversial opinion gets banned from Twitter. There is no way to protect your account, they simply ban you if you have the wrong opinion. My account was blocked because I wrote "the murderer was muslim", which in the context was a fact.
Gavin Fisher
It’s not like half of thefucking countries banned guns in general
Jaxon Perez
It's just a distraction from the spending bill and FOSTA - that will basically take away freedom of speech on the internet.
Oliver Collins
>m-muh facts
We live in a post-truth society, it's about time you woke up.
en.wikipedia.org
Aiden Brown
What about other social media sites.
Connor Walker
(((Twitter)))
Enjoy your ban
sage
Brandon Russell
It gets even better my friend.
Jose Cook
How come nobody mentions this ?
Really makes you thonk.
Christian Turner
Nah, facts are facts. Left-wing people don't accept them because they're not their facts.
They can't deal with this kind of stuff
Jaxon Torres
Action : Whenever you see an article / tweet / post on normie media that makes you want to sperg out, but you can't act for fear of revealing your power level, simply reply with the following statement :
>"Thanks for pushing normal people even further to the right."
If they try to start an argument, simply keep repeating :
>"As I said, thanks for pushing normal people even further to the right."
to whatever arguments they try to make.
Whenever you see the comment, upvote / like it.
Goals :
- Demoralization. Make them realize that every action they take is counterproductive.
- Subtly imply to bystanders that 'ordinary' people are already right wing. Remember, the major social currency among normies is conformity. If they believe that everybody else is moving right, so will they.
- Point out that the rise of the right is a consequence of the actions & voices of the left.
- Show 'the left' and the normies that we are everywhere, and that we are watching. Again, this plays into the normie desire to 'fit in'.
- Embolden those who are already on the right but are kept silent by fear of social repercussions (see previous point).
- The comment is polite and violates no 'guidelines'. They can't shut it down.
- Short comments are more likely to be read, often more so than the actual article / post / story.
- Create an atmosphere that discourages leftists to post in the first place.
This is solid enough that you could even post it on real accounts. If you ever have to walk it back just say “I AM a leftist myself. It was sarcasm. I meant that stuff like that damages OUR cause.” Even then, the statement has value as a divide and conquer strategy (ie. “a real leftist doesn’t believe that stuff”).
It doesn't matter whether you believe any of the above or not - the purpose is to make *them* believe it.
Discuss.
Ignore divide & conquer shills and demoralization shills (anybody who ‘dismisses’ the plan without providing genuine criticism is a shill.)
Adrian Lewis
Knife attack killed more people than all of the school shootings that happened
Cooper Collins
>he hasn't realized leftists are always at odds with reality
They legitimately do not belong here, there are outsiders and not really human.
Elijah Davis
You retards blame everything on Muslims despite the fact that they cause a very small amount of deaths. In the grand scheme of things, Muslims have no greater impact on overall crime statistics than white Americans like Paddock and Cruz.
Also banning high magazine rifles will help stop these attacks from happening, or at the very least, will lessen the potential death count.
Alexander Lee
So this could work. You can’t get banned for this right?
Caleb King
That is a pretty good pic imo
You can add more facts like more ppl die from wrong medical treatment or car accidents or diabetes
Carson Price
A few more bits of info.
@30k deaths a year to firearms
A pop of 350mil
Gives one a 0.003% chance of dying due to a firearm
But, only if you are black, in a gang, live in a majority black neighborhood, or a cop.
None of that applies to you?
Then your chance is statistically zero.
This means current levels of gun violence would have to increase by 1000% in order for it to be a 3% chance of dying due to firearms.
You have a better chance of dying crossing at the crosswalk with the right of way, than you do of ever being shot
Joseph Nelson
This post was written for a thread an hour or so ago that died, but the guy asked how long it would take for the gun "sanctuary" zones to exist. I kinda laughed at it at first, but after giving an honest moment's thought on it, the US is not as far from being able to ban guns as we'd like to think.
Consider first the case of the Gun Free School Zones Act: That the government was able to legislate restrictions on gun possession on school property. Though there is the chance this legislation could be overturned, I would (in my not-so-expert legal opinion) doubt it. If grounds for overturning it existed, there would have been more problems with it than the interstate commerce argument presented. The implication of this is that any public space can restrict gun use.
Second, any private space that doesn't want to have guns in their vicinity has the legal right to enforce that. Heller v McDonald (lul ameriburgers) shows that a business operating in the US has a right to enforce restrictions on people bringing firearms into their establishment.
Right here I want to add an axiom. Rights that are not explicitly protected or enumerated will be legislated as public opinion sees fit. My reasoning is based on the incentives of a politician (and really most organization), which is win an election of some kind. If public opinion consistently yields to a particular side, a politician will find it advantageous to either:
a) take money from an organization which supports a popular public opinion (ceterius paribus will have more money / resources)
b) support that opinion in order improve re-election chances, thus securing money and retaining political control.
Angel Foster
Well, twitter will ban you just cuz. But, certainly nothing in the idea itself is bannable
Luis Peterson
Now, I want to discuss what a country means when they legislate about "private property". No property, under the current legal structure, is absent from the state's control in some manner. Legislation places restrictions on what rights you have to your land. Zoning laws upheld by the S.C. mean the state can regulate how you use your property. Eminent Domain means that you only have a transient right to property. Private Property doesn't exist in the US the capitalist sense of the phrase, but rather in the way Proudhon conceptualized it. The state gives you a lease on the land, and there are rules about what powers you have and what powers they have while you have that lease.
Up to this point, we have determined:
a) Given sufficient public opinion, publicly owned space will ban guns on their land.
b) Given sufficient public opinion, privately commons (think businesses, malls, areas that are privately owned but want to attract customers and public support) will ban guns on their land.
Ayden Gray
This effectively means the only place where guns can legally exist is in one's property, in stores which sell them, and transiently allowed during transportation. What this means is that the right to a gun is spatially limited, but that these limits do not infringe on "one's ability to own a firearm for the defense of one's self and one's property". However, while governments are at the limit of spatially restrictive legislation, other avenues exist which exploit a number of the concerns of public opinion:
a) "Child safety laws" are being legislated, and more generally the "negligent storage of a firearm". This allows, at the state level, for criminal prosecution unless you have your gun locked AND unloaded while stored.
b) Restrictions to purchase, which cover any number of criteria from Age to Federal Criminal History, and beyond.
This is all somewhat stifling, but the fact you can still protect your home and property exists, which is the major concern for the vast majority of gun owners. However, having your gun locked and unloaded makes it virtually useless if someone breaks into your house and you need to quickly defend yourself. As a result, 'legislation by pacifying' means that those who want to ban guns don't have to ban them, but make them useless enough to the average citizen that their purpose that no one uses them, they effectively disappear.
The last thing, the one that is scary, is "Red Flag Laws". It's scary because it legally enforces public opinion on you and who you are as a person. If someone doesn't like you, they can say that you were a danger to yourself or others, and at the least make your life hell. While that doesn't seem like a likely scenario (and it probably isn't) it is significant for two reasons:
1) You have created a legal system which even allows for the possibility of taking someone's rights away for so little
2) You've created a legislative precedent which can and will be exploited by future legislators.
Leo Kelly
I remember this video about these two 11 year olds who organized a march against our lives thing in their town/city. I recall they never said any reason that guns should be banned, they just said that they are bad and that they hurt people.
Chase Campbell
A lot of this has been stream of conciousness, but the major point you should be taking away from the wall of autistic text above this is that guns are being banned. But they aren't being banned by having the gespato come in and pry it from your cold dead hands, they are merely creating rules. Rules that make it easier to bar you from purchasing a gun, rules that make it easier to strip you of that right, and rules that that castrate the violent function of a gun so heavily the only value you get out of it is the lock box that gun stores are required by law to give you. You guys laugh at the UK, but the only difference between them and the US is the Brady Campaign figuring out the right set of legal technicalities to make owning a gun a novelty.
Blake Mitchell
But...so do niggers.
Hmm, we maybe on to something
Ayden King
The thread is dead. Thanks guys for giving me ideas and a place to rant
Bentley Harris
This is great but facts won't change their mind. You might enlighten someone that's on the fence however.
Gabriel Torres
Digits!
Dylan Reyes
It's ok Cruz jr