Was Flash right?

Was Flash right?

Attached: 728948EB-6353-4BD5-AA38-FBFD989FA97C.jpg (1824x1381, 410K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4
youtu.be/UjhWf-9x7GM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)
twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/965393376043589632)
huffingtonpost.com/anthony-gregory/stop-and-frisk_b_1777095.html)
salon.com/2015/06/24/gun_controls_racist_reality_the_liberal_argument_against_giving_police_more_power/)
aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/10/gun-control-racist-present-171006135904199.html).
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/southern-poverty-law-center-militias-gun-control/1964411/)
diversityoftactics.org/2017/01/21/why-the-left-wing-needs-a-gun-culture/)
redneckrevolt.org),
hueypnewtongunclub.org/home),
freedom.press/news/obama-used-espionage-act-put-record-number-reporters-sources-jail-and-trump-could-be-even-worse/
youtube.com/watch?v=vvw3pHiWUfQ),
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Is he ever right?

Guns and cigarettes are a poor comparison. For cigarettes the primary danger is on the person using acting of their own free(ish) will. For guns other people are the victims. So just on the basis of that argument, no, The Flash was not right

Yes, if you're going to be an opressive fag and ban guns for some deaths then there is no reason to allow cigars or alcohol

yeah, but honestly it makes more sense to invest resources into curing cigarette addiction rather than imposing legislation that forces them out of the hands of the consumer
whenever capes take over, they never do what's smart, because their super power isn't to do what's smartest
Even capes with enhanced intelligence never do what's smartest because they are always concerned about how to use their smarts to help themselves rather than how to help everyone
In both DC and Marvel, they could figure out a way to end world hunger, end disease, and improve the life spans of everyone within 50 years
But they rarely do
The only one who did was Lex after he thought he killed Superman, because the only thing stopping him from doing exactly that was his focus on Superman

That board must be special to withstand that level of usage.

Cigars polute, it hurts people around it, is not like eating fast food

>muh slippery slope
>where does it end?

The answer is always somewhere. Superman is right, guns are a problem.
Flash is making a point but unaware that he's completely right, cigarettes are a problem and automobiles are dangerous as fuck too.
The problem is neither of them will ever acknowledge that muh freedoms is a cancerous american attitude that flies in the face of common sense.

yes. you chose to smoke, you don't chose to get shot. If I was more oppressive I would say ban the cigs too, if people want to smoke they can fuck off to another country. as is I would say let them smoke but make them not eligible for health care

because if they did smart, it would work and that would be anti democratic

>automobiles
so make robots run the automobiles, make them truly auto
>muh freedoms
because people fear that once they start eventually the ball will hit them and it will be muh animus that gets banned. The world is full of intolerable cunts, even in my office if I could I would remove 70% of people and they feel the same way about me. tolerance is the only way

You can have a science focused democracy
Vote on what you like, even if what you like goes against science, as long as it's the popular vote
As long as the focus is on democracy and not science, then it's fine
You're just blowing it out of proportion
If people voted on what works rather than what's popular or sold better, we'd have a much better time all around

Barry? No. Wally? Sometimes. Jay? Always. Anyone else who's ever held the title? Who cares?

Most people are forced to smoke outside these days. So not really an issue

Attached: images1.jpg (288x175, 10K)

>so make robots run the automobiles, make them truly auto

In a idealistic DC universe, i think they could. But Flash decides to be prick and assume Superman means kill anyone who doesn't comply.

>because people fear that once they start eventually the ball will hit them

People are stupid and paranoid. In the Injustice universe at that point, i would still trust Superman to act in people's best interest.

>tolerance is the only way

Paradox of tolerance. There will always be people trying to fuck things up for everybody else. They need to be suppressed and told that they can't spout shit like vaccines cause autism.

Democracy is a mistake.
Giving stupid people as much as a say as the educated populace leads to reality tv stars becoming president.

Yes, becuase we passed laws to ban smoking in many places. As a result, newer generations smoke a lot less.

This is where guns come in. We can do the same thing. Look at Florida. They banned bump -stocks and made the age for buying a handgun and a rifle the same. But then what happened? They get sued by one of the largest lobbying groups in the USA, for legally passing legal legislation, because it hurts who they lobby for.

Its stupid!

What? What does science have to do with anything? general populace is always going to be dumber than the top and education is far from giving us smart gen pop. The point is that when on guy/group take over to be prez for life you are advocating autocracy not democracy

>implying that would be a bad thing.

I would trust superman in regular universe (pre 52) in the injustice universe everyone is a comical retard.
>They need to be suppressed and told that they can't spout shit like vaccines cause autism.
tolerance is letting them spout it but never implement it

So how come they never bring up Billy's death? Superman straight up killed a child in anger

I agree, only university educated land-owning males should be able to vote.

>tolerance is letting them spout it but never implement it
That's the problem. People listen to them so we end up with children born in the 21st century suffering from MMR.

>for legally passing legal legislation
Actually that bill violated the 2nd amendment.

Make sure they're white too

It is entirely reasonable to sue on the basis that a law is unconstitutional. That's why the courts exist.

>Didn't chose to get shot
Actually the major issue with Guns in America is mostly because people who chose to got shot.

The 2nd amendment's stupid anyway

At least post the full exchange.

Attached: Flash v Superman Chess.jpg (960x3588, 1.74M)

No. Neither guns nor cigarettes have ever caused a war. Religion is the true threat. Guns and cigarettes combined don't even come close to the death toll of fried food,.

elaborate on your reasoning

Most Gun Deaths in America are suicide.

Religion is a tool, not the cause.

>Religion is the true threat
Oh yes, my going to church is clearly the cause of all evil in the world.

>You want people to have guns?
>Fine, then we give every body assault rifles.
>Checkmate.
>Now we can let everyone have tanks.
>Checkmate.
>Then we give everyone nukes.
>Checkmate.
>Then we systematically euthanize anyone who doesn't own a weapon.
>Checkmate.
This argument sounds stupid both ways.

Until the Gestapo show up at your door and compel you and your family to come with them to the camps.

Ok Yuro/Canadian.

I don't care if you think it is stupid. The ability to own a firearm/weapon is an inalienable right. You cannot take away my right to self defense because of another persons actions.

It doesn't matter if the amendment is stupid or not. Unless it gets overruled by a more recent amendment, the right to bare arms is absolute. A Florida law can't override it.

kek. you can't stop the Gestapo once it gets going. If they are rounding people up, you have already lost and should have paid attention long before

Oh yes I can

Why do they keep categorizing suicide as a gun accident to bump up the numbers then?

>muh rights!

youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

>one of Supes main traits is that he's one of us thanks to his upbringing
>they
>them

Could you possibly be an even bigger cliche of the burned passive agressive liberal? People had to deal with your bullshit for 8 years and they didn't throw half the tantrum
Suck it up bitch

>le ebin reddit comedian as a response
Christ

Carlin is wrong.

Rights don't come from god, they come from the barrel of a gun.

Yeah, we should have banned smoking years ago.

We have rights because we can afford to make life decent for every member of society
We also have rights so democracy can exist, otherwise there would be nothing protecting people when they lose an election

Why's he have to go after God first?

>People had to deal with your bullshit for 8 years
Obama? Fuck that guy too.
What is it with Americans and they're simplistic "if you're not x, then you must be y" reasoning?

>they're
*their

When you only have two choices to vote on for the better part of 250 years...

My argument would be that as long as the 2nd anrndment is in place it won't happen, too costly/risky. You disarm the citizenry then the government can trample on individual liberty with impugnity.

Your last one doesn't make sense at all. Back in the founding father's day it was entirely okay for people to have cannons, while they're not exactly comparable to what we have now, you didn't require a permit or anything of the sort to own or fire one and there are records of every day people taking them to celebratory events in town and firing them as part of the celebration, it wasn't seen as unusual and so it is probably the founding father's intention to include more than guns in the right to bear arms.

2 choices are still better than one hanz

>Superman tries to take all the guns
>gets to Texas
>runs into this
>youtu.be/UjhWf-9x7GM

Supes stands no chance against him. Not even a kryptonian can beat that amount of patriotism and Super Male Vitality.

Obama was great

>lol I'm spying on you
>also I extended the patriot act even though I called it out
>but hey, I'm just a quirky ol' house nigger with a soothing voice

Obama was literally 8 more years of Bush but with more privacy invasions and shady deals.

Clinton would have been 4 more.

He was worse than bush
Just another puppet of the army and the deep state

My last one refers to Flash saying "Then we kill anyone who doesn't recycle," as he escalates making something simply illegal to it being an offense that demands capital punishment.

Literally didn't help Japanese Americans.

Yeah, we should probably get rid of cigarettes. The Prohibition probably would have gone smoothly if enforced by something like the Flash from Kingdom Come.

Can guns even hurt superman or the flash

>Where do rights come from?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Boy that was easy. Fuck these libertarian shitheads like George Carlin.

Yeah! Fuck freedom! 1st Amendment, we're coming for you next!

Attached: 1507257857084.png (872x818, 220K)

Contract, huh? I don't remember signing anything.

You do know fully automatic rifles are still legal, right? All you need to do is get a $200 tax stamp and buy one. Same with tanks. Shit's just expensive, not illegal.

But it was also a time when people were expected to provide their own weapons when mustered into a militia

You do not need more than 2 firearms to protect yourself OR hunt. Gun Shows need to be banned, and the background check system should be overhauled.

Detached from objective reality

Flash just had his ass whooped by Catwoman, so I am going to say yes.
Especially a gun wielded by Catwoman.

Except that cigars still reach a pretty big area, if someone is smking near to you while you're passing or going to take a bus you will inhale the smoke for minutes

Japanese posters are the best

In the gun control debate, one reason why self-defense against tyranny is brushed off so often is because a lot of folks making that argument love tyranny.

No conservative militia would defend their black and brown neighbors against state violence. None of them lift a finger against ICE. They always defend the most repressive elements of the state, from the police to the army. They always make excuses for grotesque wealth inequality. They’re happy to attack whistleblowers at the service of the deep state (the only reason some of them criticize it now is because they think it’s politically biased, as opposed to the enormous power it wields).

The vast majority of marginalized people, including myself, don’t believe that mainstream gun culture favors our freedom. It’s exclusively authoritarian, made by and for traditionalists, nationalists, and others like them. These people want to regulate what kind of marriage is legitimate, what bathrooms trans and non-binary people can use, whether their kids are gay or straight, who can come into the country, and so on. At their worst, they’ll kill us themselves. The idea that those same people will stop LARPing the American Revolution and actually fight tyranny today is hilarious. Nobody believes it.

It’s terrible, because the core argument is correct. Taking guns away from the public and leaving the state with the authority to use them is terrifying. The state is always the greatest purveyor of violence. In the US, where police regularly profile and kill black people for the most trival bullshit, robbing them of even the slightest chance of an equal playing field is incredibly dangerous. The old Black Panther Party was able to prevent police violence against black people by open-carrying guns, and because of this, conservatives at the time were strong proponents of gun control. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)

Liberals love to quote Ronald Reagan on the topic (twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/965393376043589632)

>Americans don’t go around carrying guns with the idea they’re using them to influence other Americans. There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.

...but either don’t know or gloss over the fact that he was justifying a racist law, passed in response to the Black Panther Party resisting racist police.

We see the same reactionary underbelly of gun control today. The justification behind New York’s stop-and-frisk law (huffingtonpost.com/anthony-gregory/stop-and-frisk_b_1777095.html) “is to disarm likely suspects, although it has become a general law-and-order measure, particularly to enforce gun laws.” Existing laws, (salon.com/2015/06/24/gun_controls_racist_reality_the_liberal_argument_against_giving_police_more_power/) especially stop-and-frisk, disproportionately target black people (aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/10/gun-control-racist-present-171006135904199.html). As much as authoritarians of different stripes would like to claim otherwise, laws are not neutral in practice. We are socialized into hierarchies. The existence of law is proof enough; the idea that we can isolate law in a vacuum, away from hierarchically-defined behavior, is absurd

Gun control doesn’t just control the distribution of guns. It controls people. And more often than not, it controls marginalized people

Back in 2012, there were 1,360 militia groups (usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/southern-poverty-law-center-militias-gun-control/1964411/) in the US

How many of those do you think were radical? Anti-racist? Anti-fascist? Can you even name one? Whatever answers you came up with, I’m sure they were deeply uncomfortable. This is not a position we want to be in. This is why a radical gun culture is overdue for us (diversityoftactics.org/2017/01/21/why-the-left-wing-needs-a-gun-culture/)

This is why we need individual and communal self-defense. We’ve made some progress with organizations like Redneck Revolt (redneckrevolt.org), the John Brown Gun Club, Trigger Warning (www.facebook com/triggerwarninggunclub/), the Huey P. Newton Gun Club (hueypnewtongunclub.org/home), and probably a bunch of local groups I’m not aware of. But we’re still outgunned.

Radicals need to make a complete break with liberalism on this front. That doesn’t mean fetishizing violence, as authoritarians do. It means recognizing that the freedom of one is the freedom of all. It means recognizing that this principle actually means something, and that you’re willing to do whatever it takes to defend it. It means a profound love for your neighbor — no matter what race, gender, or sexuality they are — that transcends any political or philosophical principle, and that love is not the same as being passive.

That’s what self-defense against tyranny really means.

I'm not gonna read all that

I see no problem with this

>They’re happy to attack whistleblowers at the service of the deep state
Wow. This coming from liberals...
freedom.press/news/obama-used-espionage-act-put-record-number-reporters-sources-jail-and-trump-could-be-even-worse/

Reminder that the Obama administration ordered Western Europe to close its airspace to the Bolivian president (who was running out of fuel) because they thought Snowden was on the plane.

In Wayne LaPierre’s speech to CPAC on February 22nd (youtube.com/watch?v=vvw3pHiWUfQ), he targeted the left in multiple segments. He called out — by name — Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Socialists of America. At one point, he had to remind the audience that he didn’t mean resist them with guns, but through legal and constitutional means. Leading an organization that’s practically wedded to the state, he has to make that distinction.

There are over a thousand militias in the country. Few of them are left-wing, and the vast majority probably listen to the NRA. LaPierre may not intend violence against radicals, but you can bet that somewhere out there, right-wing militia groups are stocking up guns and ammo. Waiting for an excuse to use them on us.

We have almost nothing in comparison.

We need to change that. Now.

Different weapons have different purposes user. I have a .22 for small game, a 30-30 for deer, and a 20-gauge for turkey in my safe right now along with a couple of swords and knives. Also a morning star and flail just because.

Do I "need" them? Probably not. Is it my right to do so? You betcha. Do I like them? You betcha. Will I let anyone forcibly take them? Not without a fight.

>“I will not accept any citation of theoretical future insurrection against a government turned hostile (which government, by the way, in that event would use planes or drones to drop bombs, against which your home weaponry is no protection - it’s doing so right now to civilian populations overseas, and it did so during the 20th century in Tulsa and Philadelphia - so good luck storming the capital) because firstly, actual civilian innocent lives being lost in the present are more important than any merely theoretical future; and secondly, that’s not what the Second Amendment was truly about anyhow. The militia it refers to were the nation’s first police forces whose original formation was for the purpose of hunting and killing black people. The only valid (using the term loosely) reason for denying that the Second Amendment now requires amendment itself is that you’re okay with police shootings of people of color. Those US government bombings on US soil I mentioned parenthetically above? Black neighborhoods, residences and businesses, rich and poor. That’s what you’re defending whether or not you know it.“

This paragraph doesn’t even bother addressing the claim that gun control laws are virtually guaranteed to be used to disproportionately target black people. Nothing you’ve said here disputes the factual accuracy of it, nor does it even really acknowledge it at all.

>None of them lift a finger against ICE
Why the hell would a militia defend against a group getting rid of people that aren't supposed to be in the country? I agree with your last point but for everything else grab your buddies, your black and red uniforms, and make a group to get together and go inna woods to practice beating up trashcans.
Or just, you know, join the Pink Pistols like a normal gun owner with a soft spot of LGBTQ+.

It also misunderstands the point being made about leftist gun ownership. It isn’t necessarily even about organizing armed insurrection against the state, it’s about self-defense against fascists who, at this moment, are organizing armed militias that are using the same small arms. So that’s a second way in which it misses the mark. That said, I could also point out how it’s kind of disgusting to be making an argument that amounts to “if the state tries to murder you it’s pointless to resist because you’re powerless to stop it.” That’s basically just telling people that, in the event they’re ever targeted, they should just lie down and die.

Thirdly, the people you’re responding to are well aware of the racist history of the U.S. Constitution. No anarchist is going to defend the Second Amendment because no anarchist is going to seriously argue that the basis for a state institution is some sacred document that should always be followed. Arguments against the racist applications of gun control are not the same as arguments for the Second Amendment, because the former is an argument against a state institution and the latter is an argument for preserving the law’s authority.

>writting giants wall of texts with several links in less than a minute

FUCKING COPYPASTA SPAM

The entire point of the social contract is that you implicitly agree to it by remaining in the territory it governs.

IE: If you don't like it, you can leave.

Literally copypasta you posted in another Sup Forums thread like a week back.

>No conservative militia would defend their black and brown neighbors against state violence.
Um, what makes you say that? Conservatism =/= racism, that's a meme. There is a difference between someone being arrested for probable cause as opposed to official state policy to eradicate certain groups of people.

If police began rounding up blacks or gays simply for being blacks or gays I would defend them and do would every other conservative I know, because we know that would be wrong.

And I see no problem with banning cigarettes.

Oh boy, I sure do love the discussion about Comics & Cartoons going on in here.

Yea. People who want to ban guns are literal nazis who want to put others in concentration camps.

>If police began rounding up blacks or gays simply for being blacks or gays I would defend them and do would every other conservative I know, because we know that would be wrong.

Yes, but they'd merely label them as insurgents, anti-government activists or some other scary title and you'd actually feel good about it being done.
Generally though, it's easier to fuck them with the system than to make some big flashy effort.

But the fascists are antifa. Not the people on Sup Forums getting told by fascists to go back to Sup Forums for saying mean things about wimmin characters.

Liberals were against gun ownership and human rights until they were told they'd need guns to protect them from the mythical right-wing uprising they've been provoking non-stop for the past few decades.

They're slimy, lying insects who want their human rights intact and for everyone else to lose their own and fuck off back to the factories to pay for the leftist lifestyle.

You don't need to pull shit out your ass and call it an opinion, but here we are. An appropriate rifle for hunting and one for self defense are totally different. Then a pistol, because walking around with a rifle is a social faux pas. Then a shotgun, because they make great self defense rifle. Then another shotgun, because hunting and defense shotgun are totally different. Then maybe a .22 rifle for plinking, because plinking is fun as shit. Oh, you got a .45 acp pistol? Better get a 9mm, .45 ammo can get expensive if you want to practice. You know, pistol calibers are kinda underpowered, how about a 10mm, or .460 Rowland! SHit, going to go to a state that doesn't allow magazines over 10 rounds, let's get a .44 magnum revolver!

Fuck, I'm for a background check overhaul. It should be one system, not like five different ones that don't talk to each other very well. Good luck getting the alphabet agencies to give up their separate systems and the budget that goes with it, though.

Why should gun shows get banned? Buying from a dealer, that's a background check. The oft cited gun show loophole is when private citizen sells to private citizen, it has nothing to do with the dealers that pay for table space there.

Move to goddamn Bongland and enjoy your acid attacks and ID check buying kitchen knives.

Attached: 1488964398073.jpg (550x467, 40K)

yes but not for the reasons implied.
1. second hand smoke is worse for people than smoking, a smoker hurts everyone in their lives by smoking
2. you can kill people with gases, knives, electrical equipment, cars, bare hands, hell 9/11 had no guns involved, Oklahoma Bombing had no guns, Unabomber just needed the god damn mail system. Humans can and will kill regardless of means. I'm more curious why we are so heavy about gun laws when crime is at it's lowest in decades, hell war in general is lower than it's ever been and if we budge another 40 years without a major global conflict than it's evidence humanity isn't as violent anymore.

Attached: Debra Hewitt Convicted Of Using Prosthetic Leg To Kill Boyfriend HuffPost.png (1121x489, 61K)

I'm sure that'd work about as well as banning alcohol did.

no you don't. You love fucking finding and whining about off-topic threads.

need some ointment diaper boy?

Their natural right, i.e. rights I have for being human. The Bill of Rights codified it into law that the government shouldn't fuck with them, and were amendments added to the Constitution when the Founders said "We all know this shit is self-evident, but maybe some future assholes won't. Let's add them in the future-proof that."

Fucking Carlin.

Attached: 1519420102090.jpg (889x500, 86K)