The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of school children

[Guinastasia]

@octopus

Ah the Grapeist? I don’t know how I stumbled on a post that had been Graped. I just thought it was funny how serious the board took his/her transgressions. It was like how dare someone bring levity to these sacred halls.

Anyways, I wasn’t using any name in that era since I wasn’t posting on these boards then. It’s amazing what’s saved on the internet though. Can you imagine with how nasty and deranged the current pit people are how actually posting your real photo would go in today’s environment? It would be legitimately dangerous. I try not to post too much information that a diabolically clever person could use. Especially since it isn’t beyond some of these people’s sense of morality to dox or swat. It’s a shame actually.

@octopus

I don’t care what you think is odd. I also read some words such as agricola, pulchritudo, and et. But guess what? I wasn’t chilling with Hannibal or Caesar. Funny what things called “books” and Google let you read from a time called the “past.” :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Googling grapist and straight dope you see his/her posts from 2003. You know more about the Grapist than I, yet you came 6 years later? By your own logic you are a sock.

Good god, you are a raving loon. Get help.

[octopus]

@Guinastasia

Good god, you are a raving loon. Get help.

I think I prefer the potty mouthed version of you.

[Ike_Witt]

I’ll just leave this here for anyone who may be interested:

Swearing and intelligence.

[Riemann]

@Ike_Witt

I’ll just leave this here for anyone who may be interested:

Swearing and intelligence.

From the article:

…verbal fluency - can be measured by asking volunteers to think of as many words beginning with a certain letter of the alphabet as they can in 1 minute.

People with greater language skills can generally think of more examples in the allotted time. Based on this approach, the researchers created the swearing fluency task. This task requires volunteers to list as many different swear words as they can think of in 1 minute.

By comparing scores from both the verbal and swearing fluency tasks, it was found that the people who scored highest on the verbal fluency test also tended to do best on the swearing fluency task. The weakest in the verbal fluency test also did poorly on the swearing fluency task.

So the research doesn’t show that intelligent people swear more, it just shows that people who are more fluent in general language also tend to know more swear words. Not exactly mindboggling. The headline is misleading, but what do you expect from fucking journalists?

[Evil_Economist]

@octopus

So you claim.

So…what was your old user name?

[Noborry]

" The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of school children"

Not the tree of liberty, it’s the shrub of insanity.

The problem is not the easy access to firearms, it is in the underlying psyche of the american people. Access to firepower just makes the events more noisy, more spectacular, and yes easier for those that want to strike out. If they didn’t have guns, they would use knives. Or they would drive a car through a crowd, or they would set fire to the schools.

The real problem is that america is sick.
no-one trusts their government
no-one trusts their police
no-one trusts their neighbors
and worse, this very mistrust is being lauded as a desirable thing!
Just read the absolute vitriol that gets spewed on this board, by weenies hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, and protected by “free speech”".
Sorry, but hatemongering should not be free speech.

We are teaching our kids that there is no-one they can trust, that conforming to norms is wrong, and that the most noble thing they can do is to shout out their outrage against the system.
Is it any wonder then, that some of them express this outrage in sociopathic outbursts?

[Morgenstern]

Ya know, you sound a lot like Octoputz. Cut from the other side of the nutloaf though. Better, but still nutloaf.

[Derleth]

American Exceptionalism is disproven, not just for the good but for the bad.

Americans are, overall, like everyone else, no better, no worse. Every large group responds to incentives and circumstances in much the same way, and trying to treat large groups like individual humans is, ultimately, a pre-scientific and anti-scientific mode of history, one actual historians moved beyond in the Nineteenth Century.

It all reminds me very much of what Orwell said in “Notes on Nationalism”:

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

[snip]

It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit.

So what we are observing here is “gun nationalism”, or nationalism to the “gun culture” of people who view firearms as being a positive good and, indeed, a necessity. Any other group is to be subservient to that, and if it means calling the country with the strongest gun culture “insane” or similar, well, that’s the nationalist mindset: The chosen nation is never wrong, it can only be wronged, by villains who must be defeated.

[Starving_Artist]

@begbert2

“So much” meaning “less than half”?

I don’t expect anyone to repeal the second amendment. That would be way too reasonable and rational a thing to do, and the NRA and its foreign backers would never allow it.

However much it is doesn’t matter, as long as it’s enough. And there’s been enough to stymie halfway measures for gun control so I’m sure that there’s more than enough to keep a repeal from being passed that could lead to them being banned altogether.

[anomalous1]

@Starving_Artist

However much it is doesn’t matter, as long as it’s enough. And there’s been enough to stymie halfway measures for gun control so I’m sure that there’s more than enough to keep a repeal from being passed that could lead to them being banned altogether.

The second amendment will never be repealed. It will never happen as much as some wish it. It is one of the founding principles that differentiates the U.S. from so many other countries. It is in essence a right to protect against tyranny. It is of course really F**cked up that someone would do what they did with them, but if there are other means, and no firearms, they will be used.

Guns are not the issue in themselves, they are a tool that is very convenient to use when in the hands of a person pursuing a nefarious act. The question is, how do we take away the convenience of their use by criminals, while retaining the freedom to own them by others?Taking them away from law abiding citizens is the absolute worst measure, if you are for such a thing, it will only lead to people hoarding more weapons which will leak their way out. Taking them away may stop the impulsive shooting and suicides, but most of these types of shootings are premeditated and if they are determined they may, just may, take the time to plan out something that would be more effective in accomplishing their goals, by another means. Anyone with access to a school’s chemistry lab can likely figure out that. The real question is “What is wrong in our culture that causes this to happen?” Fix that, then the problem is fixed. Taking the easy way banning/repealing etc… will still allow the underlying issue to remain. Then you have people deprived of one of their defining rights, and nutbags still out killing people for no reason.

Blame the person, not the tool. Guns are not inherently evil, it is only in that hands of those that are when they become the problem.

[Derleth]

@anomalous1

It is in essence a right to protect against tyranny.

This quote runs directly counter to another point of NRA dogma: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.”

It’s simple: If a country is rounding up guns, it has outlawed them. Therefore, anyone with a gun is an outlaw. Further, the NRA itself proclaims that outlaws will, in point of fact, have guns, as the catechism is bereft of meaning if outlaws don’t, in practice, have guns. Therefore, the Second Amendment isn’t protecting gun ownership, and, therefore therefore, isn’t protecting a Right to Revolt.

Further, as a practical matter, owning guns doesn’t make for a successful military. “They have guns” is, as the egg-headed intellectuals say, a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a successful fighting force: You need guns to convince the enemy you’re not a sewing circle, but if your possession of firearms is your major distinguishing trait, the enemy’s going to bomb you to Hell primarily to save you the inconvenience of starving to death. Effective fighting forces are “well regulated” (… where does that phrase come from, I wonder) and organized and well-supplied and have supply lines and have quartermasters and specialists and all manner of jobs within the fighting force which are not directly connected to the pow-pow bang-bang kind of thing.

I know, Heller means I quoted a politically incorrect thing. I get that. In modern jurisprudence, “well regulated” is meaningless word-noise to be interpreted into a nullity. I also get that Sherman wasn’t just a tank… although, for the record, I doubt a modern tank would be especially terrified of pappy’s .30-06 or AR-15.

To make it even more plain: If it came down to it, the US Army would roll over your dead asses even faster than it rolled over Saddam in 1991. You’ve got Jack and shit, and Jack just joined the actual military, not some Bundy-ass “Patriot” outfit. The era of men with fowling pieces being able to Vietnam a major world empire is long gone. Get over it.

[octopus]

@Noborry

" The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of school children"

Not the tree of liberty, it’s the shrub of insanity.

The problem is not the easy access to firearms, it is in the underlying psyche of the american people. Access to firepower just makes the events more noisy, more spectacular, and yes easier for those that want to strike out. If they didn’t have guns, they would use knives. Or they would drive a car through a crowd, or they would set fire to the schools.

The real problem is that america is sick.
no-one trusts their government
no-one trusts their police
no-one trusts their neighbors
and worse, this very mistrust is being lauded as a desirable thing!
Just read the absolute vitriol that gets spewed on this board, by weenies hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, and protected by “free speech”".
Sorry, but hatemongering should not be free speech.

We are teaching our kids that there is no-one they can trust, that conforming to norms is wrong, and that the most noble thing they can do is to shout out their outrage against the system.
Is it any wonder then, that some of them express this outrage in sociopathic outbursts?

After reading the nuts on the Pit, gun control does seem very sensible. Could you imagine SteveG1 with a gun? It’s a scary thought. I’d rather risk government tyranny at this point.

[octopus]

@Derleth

This quote runs directly counter to another point of NRA dogma: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.”

It’s simple: If a country is rounding up guns, it has outlawed them. Therefore, anyone with a gun is an outlaw. Further, the NRA itself proclaims that outlaws will, in point of fact, have guns, as the catechism is bereft of meaning if outlaws don’t, in practice, have guns. Therefore, the Second Amendment isn’t protecting gun ownership, and, therefore therefore, isn’t protecting a Right to Revolt.

Further, as a practical matter, owning guns doesn’t make for a successful military. “They have guns” is, as the egg-headed intellectuals say, a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a successful fighting force: You need guns to convince the enemy you’re not a sewing circle, but if your possession of firearms is your major distinguishing trait, the enemy’s going to bomb you to Hell primarily to save you the inconvenience of starving to death. Effective fighting forces are “well regulated” (… where does that phrase come from, I wonder) and organized and well-supplied and have supply lines and have quartermasters and specialists and all manner of jobs within the fighting force which are not directly connected to the pow-pow bang-bang kind of thing.

I know, Heller means I quoted a politically incorrect thing. I get that. In modern jurisprudence, “well regulated” is meaningless word-noise to be interpreted into a nullity. I also get that Sherman wasn’t just a tank… although, for the record, I doubt a modern tank would be especially terrified of pappy’s .30-06 or AR-15.

To make it even more plain: If it came down to it, the US Army would roll over your dead asses even faster than it rolled over Saddam in 1991. You’ve got Jack and shit, and Jack just joined the actual military, not some Bundy-ass “Patriot” outfit. The era of men with fowling pieces being able to Vietnam a major world empire is long gone. Get over it.

The US military isn’t a homogeneous force. You honestly think if things got bad enough that civil unrest needed the military to squash and not just the police that the military would not have its own schisms?

[Derleth]

@octopus

The US military isn’t a homogeneous force. You honestly think if things got bad enough that civil unrest needed the military to squash and not just the police that the military would not have its own schisms?

I honestly think The Civil War answered this question.

Do you think I mentioned Sherman for absolutely no reason at all?

Do you know who Sherman was in this context?

(I realize he wasn’t The Grapist, which may well handicap you here.)

[anomalous1]

@Derleth

This quote runs directly counter to another point of NRA dogma: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.”

It’s simple: If a country is rounding up guns, it has outlawed them. Therefore, anyone with a gun is an outlaw. Further, the NRA itself proclaims that outlaws will, in point of fact, have guns, as the catechism is bereft of meaning if outlaws don’t, in practice, have guns. Therefore, the Second Amendment isn’t protecting gun ownership, and, therefore therefore, isn’t protecting a Right to Revolt.

Further, as a practical matter, owning guns doesn’t make for a successful military. “They have guns” is, as the egg-headed intellectuals say, a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a successful fighting force: You need guns to convince the enemy you’re not a sewing circle, but if your possession of firearms is your major distinguishing trait, the enemy’s going to bomb you to Hell primarily to save you the inconvenience of starving to death. Effective fighting forces are “well regulated” (… where does that phrase come from, I wonder) and organized and well-supplied and have supply lines and have quartermasters and specialists and all manner of jobs within the fighting force which are not directly connected to the pow-pow bang-bang kind of thing.

I know, Heller means I quoted a politically incorrect thing. I get that. In modern jurisprudence, “well regulated” is meaningless word-noise to be interpreted into a nullity. I also get that Sherman wasn’t just a tank… although, for the record, I doubt a modern tank would be especially terrified of pappy’s .30-06 or AR-15.

To make it even more plain: If it came down to it, the US Army would roll over your dead asses even faster than it rolled over Saddam in 1991. You’ve got Jack and shit, and Jack just joined the actual military, not some Bundy-ass “Patriot” outfit. The era of men with fowling pieces being able to Vietnam a major world empire is long gone. Get over it.

Our Dead Asses? Whom are you speaking of?

You’ve obviously missed the point. Also, I don’t even own a firearm, but I respect that other people may for many reasons.
You seem to have some strange stereotyped views of what the typical gun owner is and the interpretation of the constitution. The point is to resist. Its better to have a law allowing gun ownership than none at all, you get it? If someone is going to try to put you under tyrannical rule, the least thing you want to do is make it easy for them. Understand?

[anomalous1]

@octopus

The US military isn’t a homogeneous force. You honestly think if things got bad enough that civil unrest needed the military to squash and not just the police that the military would not have its own schisms?

I agree.

But also,

Guerilla warfare, unit cohesiveness (common cause) and will are not things that should be underestimated. Not to mention of course what you said, there would be a lot of infighting within military branches. Also, deserters who train, provide intel and help lead those who are resisting.

Anyway, back on topic. Guns are here to stay, we can speculate all we want. They are not going anywhere, so managing who gets and uses them (within reason) is the only step that can be taken. Nobody will be happy either way.

[Derleth]

@anomalous1

Our Dead Asses? Whom are you speaking of?

Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment preserves a Right to Revolt in the modern era.

You’ve obviously missed the point.

I’ve had this particular point drilled into me by people much more cogent than you.

You seem to have some strange stereotyped views of what the typical gun owner is and the interpretation of the constitution.

Nice backpedal from the person who brought this tangent up to begin with.

The point is to resist.

OK, resist an artillery strike called in by a drone you didn’t see. Resist an APC, let alone an MBT, assuming you know what either of those are. Resist a supply line that creates an enemy force which just keeps coming, while you’re counting beans in your hidey-hole.

(Yes, you. You mentioned it, you own it.)

Its better to have a law allowing gun ownership than none at all, you get it?

Are you going to quote law at a government which considers you an enemy combatant? This veers into the Sovereign Citizen.

If someone is going to try to put you under tyrannical rule, the least thing you want to do is make it easy for them. Understand?

You don’t make it easy for them. The fact they have a monopoly on the cruise missiles and MOABs makes it easy for them.

And this would be a lot less amusing if the GOPpers weren’t the ones calling for increased militarization of the police force.

[Derleth]

There is, of course, a larger point here:

Armed revolt is for losers.

Armed revolt only makes sense if you’re so marginalized, so desperate to be taken seriously, and so far from the political mainstream you can’t win at the ballot box. If there is no ballot box, that’s one thing, but given that the USA has had Presidential elections every four years like clockwork, even in 1864 (… wait while anomalous1 rushes off to look that one up… ), proves that this isn’t about resisting a government that’s just cancelled the election. No, this is about resisting a government in which your group is a minority group which can’t gerrymander themselves into significance.

It goes back to my post about nationalism: The Gun Nation is saying, almost in so many words, that it will hold America hostage if it can’t win the honest way.

And they call that patriotism.

[Kobal2]

@octopus

The US military isn’t a homogeneous force. You honestly think if things got bad enough that civil unrest needed the military to squash and not just the police that the military would not have its own schisms?

Dunno. There didn’t seem to be much schism going on during the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Der_Trihs]

@anomalous1

The point is to resist. Its better to have a law allowing gun ownership than none at all, you get it? If someone is going to try to put you under tyrannical rule, the least thing you want to do is make it easy for them. Understand?

Gun ownership doesn’t hamper tyrants in the slightest, and often makes their job easier. Citizens with guns make for great death squad recruits after all.

In real life, a tyrant like Saddam Hussein was perfectly willing to allow the widespread ownership of guns; because he knew it made no difference, unlike the fantasies of American gun worshipers.