At the beginning of September, I decided to leave Facebook for a few months, deciding that I would login again sometime around Christmas. The book of face wasn't really giving me anything, but taking mad amounts of time via scrolling through the timeline. Not exactly a productive use of ones time. This is but one change in my life that I am undertaking, and I can honestly say that it is a positive one.
I intend to concentrate more heavily on the blog, and get diverse content up on a regular basis. Watching parts spin at work, I decided that I would concentrate the blog on three areas that I am passionate about; guns, games, and grub/health. I'm going to call it the "3G Approach." One could call it the "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness" approach, but that sounds really heavy handed.
I know I've had many of these in the past, and likely I will have some in the future (though I will do my best to resist telling you about it in the future). I do so now because you may notice a change (that one person who still checks in). To begin this new transition, I am going to return to my "In-line Debate" format for the rest of this post. This one is going to be a longer post. You have been warned.
Sometimes when I get bored, I troll my Google feed and see what comes up. It’s not exciting by any means, but at times it does bring forward an article that piques my interest. Sometimes, those articles are interesting, and sometimes… Well… I’ll leave it for you to decide what you think about this one. In my humble opinion, I think the author misses a few very important points, and draws some very peculiar conclusions. I’m going to do my best not to be snarky or rude, but just point out things that I think have some serious flaws in logic.
My responses will be in BOLD and his words will remain in regular type set. Let me know what you think. Am I wrong in my assertions, or does this guy make salient and rational points? I didn’t see an author listed in the post, so I’ll just leave it as I found it. Who the author is isn’t as important as the ideas they put forward, so I’ll concentrate there.
Attn Briscoe Cain & confused copycats: Your AR-15 ain't worth SPIT! Confronting powerlessness. (This will make even less sense before this is through)
Beto For Democracy (BFD)
What a smashing success Congressman O’Rourke enjoyed at the Houston debate, so electrifying his name trended #1 on Twitter late into the early morning, fading to #2 only to the debate itself! Crazy! Even crazier to expect him to disappear from the big stage and run for Senate!
Ok, so you’re candidate got a rock solid Twitter mention. Twitter ain’t real life. It’s also not a good way to discern what matters as Twitter is far more left leaning than it is centrist. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Beto, who is very open in his desire to end semi-auto rifle ownership, would get good traction on Twitter. But it doesn’t mean anything. So, slow your roll a little and wait to see how this pans out. IF he bumps up to be competitive with Biden or Warren, then maybe you have a point, but last I checked, he was at something like 3% in the polls (2.8% overall as of Sep. 11). Not exactly swimming in victory waters.
As for Google trends, you’d think the searching data would reflect mirrored trends between both platforms (See my comment about Twitter above- it’s not representative of the general populous, just the progressive populous) but it didn’t and I’m kind of suspicious who sits on Google’s Board so determined to shield the true numbers. Google searches of “Beto” weren’t slightly lower nor much lower nor equal compared to Twitter. In fact, the company reported “No Data Available” on Beto. So there is no comparison for us to make! Talk about some shady shit.
I’m not really large enough for Google to worry about, but there are a LOT of content creators and website owners on the right or in the middle who would simply say, “welcome to the club.” Google has a left leaning bias that is easy to see if you look, so either A) Beto isn’t doing as hot as you seem to think he is, or B) Google sees him as a threat to enacting the agenda of the left. I’m leaning toward A.
No way in hell that’s some glitch and no doubt whatsoever some of the most powerful oligarchs in the world feel mortally terrified of Beto gaining any traction, not when he’s owning Republicans on one of their signature issues and threatening the very foundation of their entire campaign finance network.
I really don’t see that. Beto isn’t owning anyone on anything. If anything, he is reinforcing what many of us have been saying about the Democrats (and the left in general) for years, and that is that they wish to take our guns. Warren is saying the same things (just not being as blunt) as are the media. He appears to be driving his election bid at the extreme left elements while ignoring those in the middle. That’s the opposite of owning someone. He’s giving my side of the gun argument ammo to work AGAINST his side of the gun argument.
Let’s also not forget Trump’s FEC Republican committee members recently blocked investigation into the NRA record amount donated to Trump, triple that funneled to Romney in 2012. Did it come from Russia? FBI investigation is ongoing on that end as they comb through financial data.
If Russia did help The Don win the election (which there is no evidence to support their having done so) and if Russia gave money to the NRA to get The Don elected, then sure, go after them. But that doesn’t equate to “guns are bad.” Unless you want to make the case that Russia is actually making America less capable of defending its sovereignty by donating to the fight for the rights of law abiding Americans to own arms. Well… On second thought, given where this is going, I may have to eat my words there. You may actually believe that the commoners owning weapons is a bad thing for national defense… From a totalitarian states perspective anyway…
Anyways, here's the noteworthy epic takedown of NRA that triggered death threats from a TX state office holder.
Beto- “Last night, I was asked if I would buy back AR-15s and AK-47s. I said, ‘Hell yes.’ If you are with me, RT.” pic.twitter.com/Z29m8i1Orn
Not a takedown.
Say goodbye to NRA pipelines to Texas if the AR-15 becomes unpopular because of this man!
Really doubtful. I don’t see Texas- who’s motto is “Come and take it,” as just giving up on the NRA if the AR-15 becomes unpopular… Which Beto can’t do, as people really like the rifle in question.
He surely sent Briscoe Cain back to the well.
Briscoe- “My AR-15 is ready for you.”
Beto- “This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15 and neither should anyone else.” pic.twitter.com/jsiZmwjMDs
Maybe you should red flag him. Come on… You know you want to. Seriously though, would that comment, which is clearly a nod to Leonidas’s retort to the Persians at Thermopylae (as is Texas’ motto) and not a ”death threat” be enough under red flag laws to take away someone’s arms? If that’s the case, would wearing a “Molon Labe” shirt constitute the same thing? Would that even hold up in court? And what’s to stop people taking comments like Briscoe’s out of context to do just that- restrict a person in the execution of not one, but TWO rights protected under the constitution? Can't you see the danger here of conflating what someone says, and altering the meaning to suit your purpose?
And after Briscoe’s original death-threat Tweet (which it wasn’t, as any sane and rational and studied human being could tell you) was reported and removed (read, “<CENSORED>”) for safety purposes (Read, “to protect peoples feelings”) and after the O’Rourke campaign filed a complaint with FBI, the NRA teet sucker (Read “Republican Congressman”) went straight back to the well once again!
Briscoe- “You are a child Robert Francis” https://t.co/rU3WoYQFQV
Apt description of Beto’s retort. Beto: “I’m going to mandate that armed people come to your house and take away your guns if you don’t sell them to the government.” Briscoe: “Come and take them.” Beto: “I’m telling- you threatened me…” That is pretty much what happened.
Yes, Congressman Beto O’Rourke made history (That's a Stretch...) at historically black college Texas Southern University when he took aim at the single greatest symbol of white power known to President Trump’s predominately uneducated, impoverished white male voter base:
Here it comes…
But wait… It gets better.
Not money, guns. Dollars are not symbols of white power outside Trump’s exclusive country club inner circle. And President Obama and George Soros are richer than they could ever dream. The pursuit of money is not a viable life plan.
The pursuit of money can be a viable life plan- look at Soros and The Don. It’s just that money can’t buy you everything. I’m quite certain that no matter how much money the colonists were willing to pony up to the Crown of England in late 1775, they wouldn’t have bought their independence. But I’ll let you keep going…
The disenfranchised poor white male ATM spits out far too few Andrew Jackson’s for wealth to define their identity. Lack of money only sparks envy, self-hatred and lust for ammunition.
Where in the ever loving… How do you draw that conclusion? I can’t pull out as much moola as I want from an ATM, so I hate myself and lust after ammo? Because I envy rich people? You better have some REALLY strong argumentative points to flesh that one out… I do love how you're using "Andrew Jackson's" to denote some kind of ritualistic slave holder fantasy on the side of the "disenfranchised poor white males" of the nation. We'll hit that more in a bit though.
Seedy gambling machine havens dot poor rural towns further diluting and devaluing their paltry political capital gains. Money is a losing game for them. Their insatiable thirst for inclusion with elite whites remains never fully quenched, perpetually like a raging poverty ravaging to self-worth..
… English? “Raging poverty ravaging to self-worth?” I think you’ve just left the tracks and plopped into a gorge… I agree that people do get sucked into Casinos to squander what they have in the hopes of making more. More money can equate to financial security, unfortunately our society forgot to give their youth lessons on how money (and interest) work, or Casinos probably wouldn’t do so well. And I figured you’d be happy with Casinos, as many are owned by Native American Tribes, and white people go there, lose their shirt, and transfer their wealth (willingly) to the Native American owners. Given how much you're ragging on "poor uneducated white guys" I'd figure you to be super happy they get taken at casinos. I’m really confused with you…
Congressman O’Rourke didn’t shake them down for personal hand guns harbored for self- defense nor for rifles designed for deer hunting. No. He went straight for their jugular, lunged for the AR-15 and AK-47, the most powerful weapons available to poor civilians (of all colors- you forgot that piece of the puzzle) feeling most powerless in a white world that teaches them they’re supposed to be more successful than blacks like President Obama.
Are you racist? Seriously. Are you a racist? You are ranting about “poor dumb assed white guys” with such reckless abandon that I’m beginning to think you hate white dudes. Hating someone because of their skin color (and not the content of their character) is racism. Blaming the ills of an entire nation on a group of people based on their racial dynamics is racism. And yet, he we are, going down this rabbit hole, blaming “poor, uneducated, white people” for everything because they want a better life. This is no better than Hitler blaming the Jews, or plantation owners blaming blacks. It’s disgusting, foul, arrogant, and evil no matter how you slice it, package it, or justify it. This isn’t about guns at all. Beto is your useful idiot, isn’t he?
But going back to the argument, the AR-15 and AK-47 are two very useful tools for retaining (or gaining) liberty from an authoritative state. WE recognize this regardless of who we are every time we watch a movie or read a story where the protagonist uses arms to save the day. Only in the worst scenarios we can imagine are the people so emasculated that they can’t fight back (Think “1984,” or “Fahrenheit 451.”). None of those people retain the ability to resist (arms and the knowledge of how to use them) and are absolutely at the mercy of their leadership. Is that the shit show you want to live in? I don’t.
Trump taught them to challenge Obama’s claim to American citizenship, peddling white supremacist conspiracy theories that allow hopeless self-defeating whites to dismiss their failures, since the Obama Presidency and success "never really counted".
CNN taught them to challenge Trump’s legitimacy, peddling socialist supremacist conspiracy theories that allow hopeless self-defeating socialists to dismiss their failures, since the Trump presidency and success “never really counted.”
Some of Trump’s most loyal sympathizers, so neglected and beaten down by a slave-driving oligarchical economy, fail to appreciate the incarnation of racism in a President with a flair for slave-owner mentality. They have no clue where and how these chains first arrived on Jamestown shores in 1619.
Changing the face of a Federal Reserve Note is a big deal. Sure, Andrew Jackson has his foibles- but he defeated big banks during his presidency (and may have almost been assassinated for his efforts) and that right there is a stab in the face of “rich white assholes” if I ever saw one. The fact that his face emblazons a bill printed by the same banks he would have railed against can be taken as a win for you (especially if you think the Fed is all about protecting the little guys like you and me, and not about inflating the wallets of a slim minority- interest to be paid in gold). But, if you think the banks are part of the problem, then maybe you should get woke and take a lesson from ole Andrew Jackson, and work hard to eliminate the Fed from existence.
Harriet Tubman is a true American heroine, and I would actually be open to her face being plastered on something we use regularly. But is a $20 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE really the thing we want a symbol of freedom put on? Seriously. Is that a true way to honor her memory? What about making her birthday a national holiday, that you get off (with pay) to celebrate her life and achievements? Or would you rather just erase Andrew Jackson (the man who took on the Federal Bank and won back in his day- and almost got killed because of it) from existence?
In a hostile job market where the top 1 tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, there is deep seeded shame that breeds reckless blame.
An AR-15 doesn’t buy you stock in Google and Apple. You instead settle for Bitcoin knock-offs that incinerate your entire savings in the blink of a cash register, leaving you without money to maintain reliable transportation. And there goes that lift on your truck.
Are you seriously using "getting a lift on your truck" as an argumentative strategy against buying a rifle? Are you seriously advocating getting a useless upgrade to a piece of equipment that is overbought and underutilized as a reason you wouldn't want to buy a gun? Heaven forbid you buy a rifle, and not buy some useless thing that the VAST majority of people who OWN trucks would never, in a million years, ever need. It's like you're trying to perpetuate consumer culture at he expense of individual liberty... Do you work for big business?
Your AR-15 won’t buy you a limo ride with President Trump.
Neither will a lifted truck. What kind of argument is this?!
An AR-15 doesn’t buy you an education that could help you launch a career that allows you to more ably support a healthy, happy family. You need free college tuition, even if it benefits blacks smarter than you. But you settle for trolling “libtards” on your FB and Twitter feeds. As consequence, you remain underpaid or unemployed, a fixture in your mom’s basement, like a fake plant.
First off, you're right, and AR-15 doesn't buy me an education. But if the chips fall, it can buy me my liberty. Second, if you make something free (or in this case, charge the people extra taxes to give them something they could pay for themselves if the government stopped propping up it's bloated prices) you are going to REDUCE the overall effectiveness of that thing. The reason that a college education is valuable is that there are comparatively few people with them. The more degrees you hand out, the less that degree will matter. The more you incentivize colleges to hand out degrees, the more they are going to water the curriculum down so that they can pass more people (and give them more degrees). The cost won't go down, it'll go UP in ways that aren't tangible. You may fix the dollar amount, but with ever inflating dollars, that cost will rise. More people will be pushed through these institutions, and the net result will be people with less education with a college degree than people leaving high school in 1910.
Seriously, look at just about EVERYTHING that the government touches or legislates. They bog shit down. The humble gas can is a great example. They were fine. Did exactly what they were supposed to do, and people had few problems with them. Then they legislated that gas cans need to have "no spill" spouts. Now, gas cans are a pain int eh neck to use, constantly break (feeding consumerism) and actually cause more spills. Is that really what you want to do to college?
And here is where you really lost your argument. You are dropping into name calling. Well... You've been doing it for a while now in a more nuanced way, but this is much more direct. You may think you have a valid point, given that I evidently live in my moms basement (and not in my own home, that I pay for with my own moneys, that I get from my own labor from a job I got on my own) but you don't. Ignore my beautiful wife, and four amazing children. I'm the loser. Got it. Check, roger. BTW, didn't vote for Trump (though I am this time).
And lastly, the AR-15 won’t fly you to an exotic island of escape nor float you on voyage aboard a millionaire luxury yacht. In fact, it won’t gain you entrance to glamorous Trump country clubs like Mar-a-Lago resort. It’s a gun-free zone. Your AR-15 doesn’t even qualify you for a gig as a shuttle driver at this same country club.
Your AR-15 can’t buy real entertainment or a real life of leisure (Have you ever been shooting? Shooting is entertainment and leisure!). You settle for opioid addiction, diseases that cripple your ability to maintain a living or keep a stable romantic relationship. You struggle to hold jobs, you go through heroin withdrawal, your white friends die from heroin overdose. You settle for alcoholism instead but still it gets you nowhere famous, nowhere close to the level of slaveowner wealth Trump has accumulated conning his slaves into thinking the AR-15 is worth fighting for, going to prison for, dying for.
"We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Liberty, according to our founding fathers, was, is, and forever will be worth fighting for, going to prison for, and dying for. My children's freedoms, and the world I leave them, is worth fighting for. That's the major disconnect in your argument, and the biggest flaw in how you are attempting to argue against "white people owning guns." You've broken down a simple debate on liberty and freedom, and turned it into a racist diatribe against one class of people (poor white people) who are actually (according to you) closet racist wannabe slave owners. How do you rectify this belief with reality? What evidence do you have that white people want AR-15 to enslave black people? It's utterly false. It's utter bullshit. The only person who is worried about a certain racial group owning AR-15's is you. You should really think about that.
This is the current incarnation of the slave owning hierarchy your ancestors embraced, that you want to uphold, even though it’s killing you.
The slave owner Andrew Jackson remains the face of American currency and legacy instead of abolitionist Harriet Tubman, Jackson a man who owned double the number of slaves as the average slave-owner of his time. Your ancestors owned SHIT! You currently own an AR-15 that is currently worth shit, while you keep voting for your Republican slave masters who continue to throw bread crumbs at you.
But you think you can be like Briscoe Cain and threaten a candidate for U.S. President, huh.
I'll let my readers go view your post for themselves (which I encourage anyone reading this post to do, the link is at the bottom) to view the Tweet you pictured. Again with the Andrew Jackson remark. Yup, he was a flawed person. Maybe we shouldn't have his face on the $20 bill. But given how he hated centralized banks, and his face is on a note for a centralized bank, maybe there is some poetic justice there you're missing?
<This is where the picture of the Tweet is, a young man on his front porch with an AK pistol, and the words, "Come try to come take it @BetoOrourke I double dare ya! #beta".>
Yup, the optics there are terrible, but again, it's a simple "Molon Labe" derivative. And that's the thing. Each Tweet you cherry picked is exactly that. They aren't saying, "I'm gonna get you!" They are saying, "Come and take them." It's a defiant gesture, not a direct threat. Beto can opt not to come and take them, and nothing happens to Beto (or rather, the people Beto sends to go and take them, because Beto won't be doing the actual confiscation of arms from armed people. He'll leave that to underpaid law enforcement officers.).
Knock knock, who’s there? FBI! FBI who? FBI raid you!
They very well might, and again, is that constitutional? No threat that I can see. Bad optics, yes, but no threat. Simply an invitation that Beto can accept or deny. DO I condone this young man's Tweet? No. Again- it's very bad optics. But I can understand his meaning, and where he's coming from. Maybe you should try, you know, to bridge the gap.
You threaten a man who served SIX YEARS on Veteran Affairs Committee, honoring and caring for soldiers, many who nearly died fighting in REAL wars, suffering wounds earned on REAL battlefields, not the kind you perpetuate with the AR-15 on children like the 15 year old HS girl who bled out in front of her parents in a civilian space.
You may want to revise that last sentence. It's klunky, and seems to wonder effortlessly into oblivion. Just because Beto sat on the Veteran Affairs Committee doesn't mean that his words are beyond scrutiny, or that his ideas are perfectly moral. Disarming the people isn't moral- I don't care what committee you sat on.
As an aside, I'm with Heinlein on committees. "A committee is a life form with six or more legs, and no brain."
Readers out there, when you see these copy cat death threats on Twitter, report first before you block. Then block. Don’t engage. Disarm.
Deplatform the motherfuckers like Alex Jones.
With regards to a legitimate death threat, sure, report. But maybe not block. I mean, you want to keep an eye on people like that, don't you? You can monitor someone while simultaneously ruining their PR, and degrading the effectiveness of their message. If you block them, they still have followers and no dissenting views (we call this an "echo chamber"). You don't engage people like that to change their minds, but to change the minds of the people they are trying to influence. I'm all about taking white supremacy and Neo-Nazis and putting them where they belong (the scrap bin of failed bad ideas) but you can't do that by simply reporting them and blocking them. That's the equivalent of tattling, and burying your head in the sand.
Blocking isn't the answer to anything. Engagement is. Trying to understand the other side is. We can't bridge the gap by closing our eyes and putting our fingers in our ears when we hear or see something we don't agree with. We have to be willing to go up and honestly ask questions, and learn the why behind the what. Not to fall into their beliefs, but so we can come to see those people who hold those views as people in their own right, with feelings and concerns that may not be getting answered. How they view the world may be wrong- but you can't just shut them out. That will only breed anger and distrust.
And anger and distrust never solved anything for long. It normally acts as the trigger for even bigger problems down the line.
Ok, that's it for today. There is more in the post that his person wrote dealing with reparations, but I haven't got it in me to go after that just today (and it doesn't really fit with the framework of this debate anyway). I'll try and tackle that one at a later date, as I do have some thoughts on the matter. What do you think? Is the original author right? Does he make salient points? Comment with your thoughts, share if you think this is worth sharing. More to come.