Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Triumph is going to destroy the 'BUSA :(


Recommended Posts

Not sure I understand your comment?

 

People in Orlando were locked in a club for a prolonged period of time(believe it was a couple hours) until the guy started slaughtering them over a roughly 15 minute period. Supposedly a good deal of them were piled on top of each other in bathroom stalls in a feeble attempt to stay out of sight. Many made phone calls begging for help that came way late, no doubt greatly adding to the death toll in that incident.

 

Anything we come up with is obviously speculation but if just one person in that bathroom had a gun on them, it very well could have been a game changer. Again, posted gun free zone. Only person armed was the guy that ignored the sign.

 

Agree or not, I can say that had I been there I’d certainly have preferred to have been armed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 334
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not correct.    Slaves obviously couldn’t vote. But the founding fathers set it up as a hedge, which part of the compromise of giving up their independence as a state that regulated itself,

HAhahaha   "you know I always thought that when fascism really took hold in America it would be somehow a lot cooler. Instead we ended up with a fat old fuck golfing with Kid Rock".  

Granted the power vacuums created by the loss of Saddam was devastating, but the only people capable of actually fixing the problem we've created unfortunately aren't Americans, or other foreign coali

Posted Images

The cops piled on people to save them. They did not run away like you said they're allowed to do under the supreme court decision you brought up.

 

So they waived their supreme court protected right to flee the scene in an attempt to save lives.

 

I

 

Where are you getting this from? Most of the people killed were inside the club with a large bunch being in the bathroom. Cops weren't inside until the murderer was dead.

 

But how is that relevant? Even it is fact (unsure myself), because some cops reacted well in this instance you'd assume they would in all situations or even most? Considering for several years people here have been protesting police, if not outright rioting, is there really all that much confidence in them putting their asses on the line to save yours? Especially after the Supreme Court took the time to hear the case and officially declare it isn't their duty or responsibility?

 

I'm definitely not trusting my life and that of my family on the hope that a cop is going to do the right thing (assuming he's even capable considering how poorly trained most cops are) and be there to save my life. Not to say I wont allow him to if he's there, but I'm not going to solely depend on only that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Untrue that he was the only armed person. There was a trained armed guard in the club. They traded fire and I believe the guard (who was an off duty cop) was killed.

 

He ambushed the security guard after bypassing him. Not exactly the same thing as being one of the people cowering behind cover or concealment that could have been armed. Also, I'm not saying it would have stopped the guy. Only that if it were me, I'd rather have had a fighting chance by being armed myself and that had one of those people inside (or better yet, several of them) been armed, I think it's unlikely it would have dragged out as long as it did or that he'd have killed as many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in the right mind would want people armed in a night club. Drugs are enough of an issue, the last thing you would want to accompany it is a gun. Additionally, regardless of the situation, the defendant would always be reacting to a hostile situation, at which point having a gun wouldn't matter if you are among the first ones shot. The alternative is to arm EVERYONE, and I sure as hell don't think that would go well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who in the right mind would want people armed in a night club. Drugs are enough of an issue, the last thing you would want to accompany it is a gun. Additionally, regardless of the situation, the defendant would always be reacting to a hostile situation, at which point having a gun wouldn't matter if you are among the first ones shot. The alternative is to arm EVERYONE, and I sure as hell don't think that would go well.

 

You make a reasonable point, though I still cant fathom being trapped with a bunch of people trying to hide myself so I'm not the next one slaughtered by some murderer on a killing spree. Guess that's why I dont really go to places like that.

 

In any case, I've mentioned the cultural differences before in previous comments. I'll admit when I lived in NYC it was hard to imagine people being armed despite the fact that I was still often traveling to go shoot. Likewise, when I left NYC to where I am now, it was an eye opener to see random people walking around with guns on their hip. Now, I don't think twice about even when I'm in big social gatherings and there's an obvious presence of armed people. Ironically (or perhaps not), its actually a much more passive and friendly environment than most public events I've ever attended elsewhere. Really does suck that as a society we live amongst people that would do the type of shit we just saw in Las Vegas. Just don't know what the solution is when it shows up in front of you other than to hope you're prepared to stop it before you get claimed with the rest of the victims.

 

Anyhow, lots of great input and thought in these comments. Happy to know we've been able to discuss a pretty loaded topic without it blowing up into an emotionally fueled argument. Doubt anyones position on the matter changed much and wasn't expecting us to solve the issue ourselves here on the forum, but still has been an interesting discussion none the less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You make a reasonable point, though I still cant fathom being trapped with a bunch of people trying to hide myself so I'm not the next one slaughtered by some murderer on a killing spree. Guess that's why I dont really go to places like that.

 

In any case, I've mentioned the cultural differences before in previous comments. I'll admit when I lived in NYC it was hard to imagine people being armed despite the fact that I was still often traveling to go shoot. Likewise, when I left NYC to where I am now, it was an eye opener to see random people walking around with guns on their hip. Now, I don't think twice about even when I'm in big social gatherings and there's an obvious presence of armed people. Ironically (or perhaps not), its actually a much more passive and friendly environment than most public events I've ever attended elsewhere. Really does suck that as a society we live amongst people that would do the type of shit we just saw in Las Vegas. Just don't know what the solution is when it shows up in front of you other than to hope you're prepared to stop it before you get claimed with the rest of the victims.

 

Anyhow, lots of great input and thought in these comments. Happy to know we've been able to discuss a pretty loaded topic without it blowing up into an emotionally fueled argument. Doubt anyones position on the matter changed much and wasn't expecting us to solve the issue ourselves here on the forum, but still has been an interesting discussion none the less.

Its as much cultural as it is just where you've grown up. Being from a suburb in New England is vastly different from growing up in, say, NYC. I have conflicting feelings about carrying, simply because I do agree with your concerns about being trapped with no possible way to defend yourself. However, I don't trust many people to keep their emotions in check, and having a firearm literally at your waist could escalate a small argument to something way larger. There's a lot of fucked up people in this world who will (clearly) abuse their right to a firearm, but trusting everyday citizens to act as law enforcement is a tricky path.

 

And I enjoy open discussions about these issues so long as people are level headed. I think dialogues, even on a forum, can force people to challenge and defend their own thoughts. Who knows, maybe opinions will change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very reasonable concern. I trust most people as far as I can throw them and often wonder how many of them manage to get home each evening without being hit by a bus. Guess its a sad fact that there's a lot of damage we need to undue in this country when it comes to respect, critical thinking, responsibility and many more critical qualities and topics. And as far as the personal conflict, I agree with you... But it still comes down to the decision of do you disarm everyone due to the fact that there is no reasonable way to screen against idiocy? Ultimately you're still facing the same situation, however, which is to say that there's more historical precedence set and evidence shown, especially in this country, that disarming people doesn't resolve the issue of violence. Quite the opposite in fact, if we scrutinize the periods and places where firearms ownership was restricted or banned in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the thread title changed again. Sounds like part of the issue is trust. Is it that a cop doesn't have to protect you or is it that they have a right to protect themselves and to self-preservation? I think most of us would expect them to act accordingly in an emergency and use the tools provided to them, but on the other hand they don't have to get themselves killed for you. Only job I can think of like that is bodyguard- you're pretty much saying I'm willing to take a bullet for you. Back on trust though, the solution (I guess) is finding a middle ground. There are tons of fucked up people out there who do fucked up shit every day but we don't let that affect us, or try not to. You drive every day yet there are horrible drunks on the road killing people every day. Stories of cars jumping the curb and maiming/killing people in NYC happen more frequently than people know, but if you live there you go out and walk, you probably even jaywalk against traffic. If a guy with a backpack bomb wants to walk into a crowd and blow himself up he's probably going to do it, and there's little you can do to stop that even if you were armed. I remember I talked to a writer pre 911 who was from somewhere where bombings occurred often enough and was asking how you live like that and shit and they were commenting on how Americans have been relatively sheltered to evil and violence, and also that you have to live, have to still move through life. There's nothing wrong with carrying or having your firearm nearby but at the same time there are times and places where that's less appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raven I have literally no idea why you started talking about a nightclub I was talking about the massacre from Monday. That's where cops waived their supreme court protected right to run away from the scene and instead piled on top of people to try and shield them from gunfire. As even if they had a rocket launcher on their hip they had no idea where the bullets were coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched a shit ton of footage from Vegas and didn't see cops piling on anyone. The ones I saw were running like everyone else.

.

 

 

 

Trump shooting free throws with Paper towels made me shake my head. That fucking guy don't give a fuck. I hope at the end of all this people wake up and demand acceptable candidates. The lesser of two evil system is fucking dog shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Old colleague, great thinker, even better writer.

 

Manners and Political Life

Oct 11, 2017

fw-bar-600.png.18597e69d01291bc9d27f65c608aa280.png

 

By George Friedman

 

I married a woman born in Australia, of that class that emulated English culture. Loving her as I did, I did not understand the British obsession with table manners. For her, eating a bowl of soup was a work of art, a complex of motions difficult for me to master, and to me incomprehensible in purpose. From the beginning of our love, dinner became for me an exercise of obscure rules governing the movement of food to my mouth. It was a time when conversation was carefully hedged by taboos and obligations. Some things were not discussed at dinner.

 

Meredith, my wife, grew up elegant and restrained. The enormous body of rules she called good manners rigidly shaped and controlled her passions, which were many. She followed the rules she learned as a child partly out of a desire for others to think well of her, partly because she regarded these manners as the laws of nature. Restraint and propriety were the outward sign of a decent life. The dinner table was where children learned that there were rules to a civilized life. For many, the powers of good manners crushed their souls, leaving them with little but the arrogance of having mastered the rules. For the best, manners provided the frame for a life of free will and self-confidence. Good manners allowed her to be both free and civilized, in the English manner. Her obsession with manners imposed a civility that shaped the way in which people disagreed.

 

I grew up in the Bronx, a place of fragmented cultures, of immigrants under severe and deforming pressure. There were many cultures – few any longer authentic, all in some way at odds with each other. Meredith’s table was a place of restraint. Mine was a place of combat. The hidden message about food was to eat as much as you can as quickly as you can, because who could really know when you would eat again? The table was a place of intellectual and emotional combat, where grievances were revealed, ideas were challenged and the new world we were in was analyzed for its strangeness. The grammar of debate took precedence over digestion.

 

She and I appear to many to be mismatched. She has never lost her belief that one must show restraint to appear to fit in. I have never lost my belief that the world is a dangerous place that must be confronted vigorously. Yet underneath these differences we formed a bond, based on a will to live as we will, but distinguishing carefully between who we were in private and who we were in public. This distinction is the root of both sanity and civility. I learned from her that there was a time and place for everything. I learned that without manners, however arbitrary they might be, life was chaos. I learned that combat, in speech and deed, might sometimes be necessary, but that it must be bound by the rituals of civility, or everything is destroyed. I am not sure she learned much from me.

 

Public Life

 

Manners make it possible to disagree within a framework of ritual that the disagreement does not lead to unhealable breaches. They allow you to live much of your life in unthinking patterns, freeing you to devote your thoughts to matters more pressing than how to greet someone, or whether to put on a tie. A tie is an example of this. It is a pointless piece of cloth. Yet, in putting it on, the act of dressing becomes complex and focuses you on the task ahead. You are putting on a tie because what you will now do has some importance – at least for me.

 

I grew up in the 1960s, when manners were held to be a form of hypocrisy, the sign of a false and inauthentic time. When Mickey Mantle hit a home run, he trotted around the bases as if his excellence was incidental and required no celebration. His undoubted elation was contained within ritual. Today, success in sports has fewer limits, and success and contempt for the other side frequently merge. When I was very young, courtship and marriage rituals were ringed with things you did not do. Of course, all these things were done, but they were hidden from the gaze of others. Part of it was shame, but part of it was also respect for manners, even in their breach. It had the added and urgent dimension that the most precious parts of growing up were private things.

 

The argument was that honesty was the highest virtue. Manners restrained honest expression and therefore denied us our authenticity. What came of this was an assault on the distinction between what we are in private and what we are in public. The great icon of this was Woodstock, where the music was less important than the fact that things that had been ruthlessly private had become utterly public. The shame that is attached to bad manners was seen as dishonesty, and unrestrained actions as honesty. The restraint of manners became mortally wounded.

 

Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower had come to despise each other by the time of Eisenhower’s inauguration. They hid this in public. The press, undoubtedly aware of the tension, chose not to focus on it. The ritual that was at the heart of the republic – the peaceful transfer of power – was the focus, and the personal feelings of each were hidden from view. They were dishonest in their public behavior, and in retrospect, the self-restraint with which they hid their honest feelings was their moral obligation. These were two dishonest men, honoring their nation in their dishonesty.

 

GettyImages-158402832-1024x685.thumb.jpg.575bba4a0ec2b988c6c03c19f86e8341.jpg The U.S. flag flies at half-staff above the White House on Dec. 15, 2012. MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

The press was in on the act. The press is an institution specifically mentioned in our Constitution. Implicitly it is charged with telling the truth. The press minimized the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt was disabled. The New York Times refrained from publishing that the Soviets had deployed missiles in Cuba. Reporters did not make public the rumors that Eisenhower might have been having an affair in England. All of these might have been true, but the press saw its role as that of an adversary to the state, but not an enemy.

 

Members of the press saw themselves as carrying out three roles: They were journalists, they were citizens, and they were well-mannered. As journalists, they published “all the news that’s fit to print.” As citizens, they wanted the U.S. to win World War II and would do nothing to hinder it. As ladies and gentlemen, they knew there were things that were true but did not warrant telling. There were always exceptions, but the prestige press, as they were then called, did not see these roles as incompatible.

 

It is important not to overstate the comity that existed, or neglect the exceptions, but the idea that good manners required certain behavior did matter. It is not clear to me that the republic suffered from the restraint of good manners and the ability of politicians and journalists to feel shame.

 

Authenticity

 

Today, we are surrounded by politicians who have decided that honesty requires that they show how deeply they detest each other, and a public that feels free to display its contempt for any with whom it disagrees. Our opponents have become our enemies, and our enemies have become monsters. This has become true for all political factions, and all political factions believe it is true only for their opponents. The idea that it is proper to hide and suppress our malice because not doing so is bad manners has been lost on all levels. With this has been lost the idea that it is possible to disagree on important matters, yet respect and even honor your opponent. Or, put another way, what has been lost is the obligation to appear to feel this way. Manners, after all, do not ask you to lie to yourself, but merely to the rest of the world.

 

The obsession with honesty over manners hides something important. Depending on who you are, depending on what you say, and depending on why you say it, honesty can be devastating. The idea that manners create inauthentic lives, lives in which true feelings are suppressed, is absolutely true. But it forgets the point that many of the things we feel ought to be suppressed, and many of the truths we know ought not to even be whispered. Indeed, the whisperer, when revealed, should feel shame. Without the ability to feel shame, humans are barbarians. It is manners, however false, that create the matrix in which shame can be felt. When we consider public life today, the inflicting of shame has changed from the subtle force of manners, to the ability to intimidate those you disagree with. As Francois de La Rochefoucauld said, “Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.” Today, vice feels little need to apologize.

 

I am not here speaking of issues. The issues must be debated. I am speaking of the aesthetics of debate, of restraint and respect. I am speaking of the ability to believe something deeply, yet hold open the possibility that you have much to learn from those who disagree – or at least pretend to, which is almost as good.

 

What I have written here would seem to have little to do with geopolitics. It has everything to do with it. A nation has as its foundation the love of one’s own. That isn’t a saccharine concept. It is the idea that we are born in or come to a country and do not merely share core values with each other, but honor each other for being our fellow citizens, that our mutual bond is the fellowship of the nation. Underneath there may be much malice, but good manners require it be hidden. The collapse of manners undermines the love of one’s own and weakens the foundation of the nation. And since nations rise and fall, this is very much a geopolitical question.

 

In the end, being well-mannered in the highest sense is a personal obligation. It rests on the desire to be well-thought-of as a human being, and on caring what others think of you. Many of us lack that virtue. We lack the ability to be ashamed, or we have convinced ourselves that feeling shame is a weakness. We appear on television saying things to each other that decent human beings would not reveal they feel, and our viewers applaud. There is no federal program to resurrect pride in our bearing. It flows from each of us doing it. But that requires a common code of behavior, not fully rational but fully respected, and that has been eaten away. This is the place where I should mention social media, but what more is there to say on that, so consider it said. We all know that there is a terrible problem. But most of us think it is the person we dislike who is the problem, not us.

 

There is a concept worth ending on, which is the principle of intellectual rectitude, the idea that one must be cautious in thought and in speech. That we should know what we know, and know what we feel, and draw a sharp line between the two. There is a place for feelings, but passion can lead to recklessness, and societies crumble over the massive assault of passion. One of the things I try to do – frequently failing – is to exercise intellectual rectitude in my writing. Restraint in public life – that life that you live with others – is not a foundation of civilization. It is civilization.

 

There is a time to tell the truth, and a time to withhold it. In the Bible, two books are thought to be written by Solomon. One, Ecclesiastes, is about the fact that there is a time and place for everything. It is a book of manners and of despair. Manners and despair are linked, but if you don’t know there is a time and place for everything, then you are not human. Solomon also wrote the Song of Songs. It is a poem about love and the erotic. It allows us to see that while there is a time and place for everything, and eros in the public space is unacceptable, a life without the erotic is not worth living. The Song of Songs is our solace for the rigors of Ecclesiastes.

 

The loss of time and place is the loss of propriety and proportion. It is the destruction of both the public and the private, of the life of duty and the life of pleasure. Pleasure cannot live without duty nor duty without pleasure. Neither can exist without good manners. And this applies to the relationship of lovers, of citizens and of nations. And the beginning of the path to it is intellectual rectitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Yeah, shit is a mess.

 

Trumps approach to running a nation is treating it like a business, which is the wrong approach, in my opinion.  Values matter to society and you need friends in the world, not everything should be seen in financial terms. 

 

However, not every thing he does is bad and if he goes so will the positive elements of his administration. 

  • Truth 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe trump's issue is his concern with "winners and losers" on a global scale

 

there's no system, in and of itself, that can exist as a "winner" when all the systems within a global chain economy depend on each other

 

I think trump wants it so that America is "on top" reaping all these rewards from "loser" nations....that is a very child-like grasp of economics

  • Truth 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hua Guofang said:

Agreed, also a superficial and short term electoral platform that plays on a lack of knowledge by the average person- knowledge they should not be expected to have. 

I have a slew of complaints on electoral college democracies....one being towards gerrymandering being the sole arbiter of deciding who is the winner depending on geographic sizes of voting blocks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought. I believe the soul purpose of the electoral college was rooted in fear of freed slaves out voting white land owners. Taking away the popular vote was a way of maintaining the status qou. It was not developed for protecting less populous regions of the U.S. like they tought us in grade school. In fact thats why we have states rights and home rule. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not correct. 

 

Slaves obviously couldn’t vote. But the founding fathers set it up as a hedge, which part of the compromise of giving up their independence as a state that regulated itself, to being part of a nation with a centralized governing body. Even at that time, there were specific population centers very much like we continue to see today. Most often, ports exponentially outgrew rural areas and it was just as obvious then as it is now that if it was based off mob rule - popular vote - you’d see a vastly different outcome in which densely populated ports would swing every vote, every time. Back then states still had complete independence, not to mention differing needs / values / priorities, so it took a lot of compromise to bring them to the table to give some of that up by forming a union. 

 

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

  • Like 1
  • Props 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...