4 ms·

The great majority of that 50 percent belong to one political party, that is fond of carrying around gallows, encouraging people to be locked up after being cha

by smm11 4y ago

The great majority of that 50 percent belong to one political party, that is fond of carrying around gallows, encouraging people to be locked up after being chained, etc. They're willing things to happen, as Q predications let them down.

lbrito 4y ago
I think this is a worldwide phenomenon. Usually one side of the political spectrum gets progressively reactionary (no pun intended) and extreme, while the rest of the political spectrum reacts mildly to that extremism. The media then creates a bizarre narrative that there are in fact two warring political factions, both equally extreme, one the mirror image of the other. That is almost always a strange fantasy. There is really just one radical side in most countries right now, the rest are just trying to keep things sane.
travisgriggs 4y ago
I have thought about this and the whole right to bear arms that seems to be rampant in those circles (I live in a more rural community and work in Ag Automation). On a careful reading of the lengthy 2nd amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), I realized that ownership or property is not actually enumerated here. But when I visit with my peers, what is emphasized is gun ownership. "My" guns, is the important piece that is shared with me. The ability to exchange wealth/property for a mechanism that can assert violence helps gun owners file safe, strong, secure, even if it comes at some risk to self. The gamble seems to be that they're more willing to pay this price for this comfort. So the thought experiment I walk them through goes something like this: "You know, you're right! Guns are good! This 2nd amendment thing is awesome. Power to the people, ya know? I think everyone should have a gun" (and this is where the expression starts to shift from glee to suspicion) "I support funding that provides everyone with guns. Everyone gets a machine gun. And a days worth of ammo. The Canadians will definitely think twice before invading then." At this point, there's a look of horror on their face as they begin to ponder a world where the threat of violence is equalized throughout the entire country. There's a weak laugh as the satire I'm pushing dons on them. Suggest that everyone own a current and power weapon, and you'll see the suggested legislations to limit who participates start flying. Sometimes More is Less
- notch656a 4y ago
  I'm heavily pro 2A and I heavily support every free person having a machine gun. Quite a bit of people wouldn't give you a weird look at all if you suggested that. Re: funding that would actually be pretty easy. An AR-15 from PSA is like $400-500 and the manufacturing cost between a semi-auto and auto is negligible. There's about 258 million adults in the US, so that puts the cost at roughly 125B, or under 3% of the federal budget and well below what was spent on COVID relief. With every citizen armed with a a machine gun, and by ending unnecessary foreign military operations I'd say we could easily shrink the military budget enough to make up the difference. Bonus points if the Department of Labor, department of Education, department of energy, medicaid/medicare, food stamps, ATF, DEA, CIA, and other costs were slashed to make way for supporting arming the citizenry.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
Q was a deep state run operation, everything they did was to misdirect public opinion about election fraud. They would plant stories about voting machines being hacked, and other such nonsense. They basically disappeared after the election was settled. I don't see how you think they helped the populist movement.
jfengel 4y ago
They don't ask about party, but I don't think that's true. I am one of those who anticipate it, and I'm definitely not of that party. I think they'll be instrumental in starting it. I think they'll get huffy when an election doesn't go the way they want, declare it a crisis, and governors will activate the National Guard to try to enforce it. I wouldn't say it's probable, no more than say a 10% likelihood. But a 10% likelihood of a truly awful thing is too much to ignore.

by smm11 4y ago

lbrito 4y ago

I think this is a worldwide phenomenon. Usually one side of the political spectrum gets progressively reactionary (no pun intended) and extreme, while the rest of the political spectrum reacts mildly to that extremism. The media then creates a bizarre narrative that there are in fact two warring political factions, both equally extreme, one the mirror image of the other. That is almost always a strange fantasy. There is really just one radical side in most countries right now, the rest are just trying to keep things sane.

travisgriggs 4y ago

I have thought about this and the whole right to bear arms that seems to be rampant in those circles (I live in a more rural community and work in Ag Automation). On a careful reading of the lengthy 2nd amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), I realized that ownership or property is not actually enumerated here. But when I visit with my peers, what is emphasized is gun ownership. "My" guns, is the important piece that is shared with me. The ability to exchange wealth/property for a mechanism that can assert violence helps gun owners file safe, strong, secure, even if it comes at some risk to self. The gamble seems to be that they're more willing to pay this price for this comfort. So the thought experiment I walk them through goes something like this: "You know, you're right! Guns are good! This 2nd amendment thing is awesome. Power to the people, ya know? I think everyone should have a gun" (and this is where the expression starts to shift from glee to suspicion) "I support funding that provides everyone with guns. Everyone gets a machine gun. And a days worth of ammo. The Canadians will definitely think twice before invading then." At this point, there's a look of horror on their face as they begin to ponder a world where the threat of violence is equalized throughout the entire country. There's a weak laugh as the satire I'm pushing dons on them. Suggest that everyone own a current and power weapon, and you'll see the suggested legislations to limit who participates start flying. Sometimes More is Less

notch656a 4y ago
I'm heavily pro 2A and I heavily support every free person having a machine gun. Quite a bit of people wouldn't give you a weird look at all if you suggested that. Re: funding that would actually be pretty easy. An AR-15 from PSA is like $400-500 and the manufacturing cost between a semi-auto and auto is negligible. There's about 258 million adults in the US, so that puts the cost at roughly 125B, or under 3% of the federal budget and well below what was spent on COVID relief. With every citizen armed with a a machine gun, and by ending unnecessary foreign military operations I'd say we could easily shrink the military budget enough to make up the difference. Bonus points if the Department of Labor, department of Education, department of energy, medicaid/medicare, food stamps, ATF, DEA, CIA, and other costs were slashed to make way for supporting arming the citizenry.

dukeofdoom 4y ago

Q was a deep state run operation, everything they did was to misdirect public opinion about election fraud. They would plant stories about voting machines being hacked, and other such nonsense. They basically disappeared after the election was settled. I don't see how you think they helped the populist movement.

jfengel 4y ago

They don't ask about party, but I don't think that's true. I am one of those who anticipate it, and I'm definitely not of that party. I think they'll be instrumental in starting it. I think they'll get huffy when an election doesn't go the way they want, declare it a crisis, and governors will activate the National Guard to try to enforce it. I wouldn't say it's probable, no more than say a 10% likelihood. But a 10% likelihood of a truly awful thing is too much to ignore.