Gun control

death for property damage....the polite society way!

No. They destroyed the products by smashing them inside the store. According to Lucy, if he wants to remain consistent, this is terrorism and should be punishable by death. However, those who committed these offenses were charged with plain old vandalism.

The point I was making is that a car gets set on fire on an empty lot, only if it's a Tesla, they want to prosecute for terrorism. If 30 kids get mowed down by an AR15, it's "Ah, that sucks. Too bad. Better luck with your other kids."

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying - anyone who vandalizes property should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I just find it comical that when a bunch of kids get mowed down, it's "tough titties" but if a multi-centibillionaire's stock price goes down, well now shiit's important and action needs to be taken.

Peak irony is Musk with a chainsaw making light of thousands of people losing their jobs but when the chainsaw comes his way via Walz making fun of his stock dropping, it's "what an evil man."

I think there would be some room for negotiation.

Angrily knocking over someone's cart of cabbages because they made fun of your ugly dog? No, but you'll pay the man for his trouble and clean up the mess you made.

Lighting a grocery store on fire because you didn't like the spokesperson for a store brand? Off with his head. You've lost your societal participation card. Better luck next time.

I'm not ashamed for being a much bigger fan of the death penalty than you. Libs are mad about overpopulation and I'm mad about people not behaving themselves. I feel like we can both win here.

you'll never win because you're definition of libs is 'anyone else...'

you sound dumb and your statements sound dumber

The irony here being the whole bud light controversy was because a bunch of middle aged white dudes were outraged about a spokesperson for a brand

Death threats, boycots, protests, and yes vandalization.

And calling Musk a spokesperson is incredibly disingenuous

I'm glad that conservatives finally believe that just selling the bullets&guns ties you to the results.

Not sure which episode you are referring to, can you elaborate?

if people were going around in grocery stores destroying property of the store which had very clear links to politics because they were boycotting Bu light over advertisements made with a trans person which they didn't like, then obviously yes?

Political violence is terrorism, it's not about which side does that.

If libertarians start to destroy the cars of IRS employess because they hate taxes, that's terrorism as well ok?

Got it - so arson should be punished with decapitation. Due process, or nah?

What about if these anti-Tesla freaks break into the Capitol Building, shiit on the walls, break windows and doors, beat police with flagpoles, and chant "hang Elon Musk..." off with with their heads, or nah?

That's odd that you know the degree of my stance on the death penalty when I have never given my opinion on the death penalty.

So dude who caused $900 in damage by wrecking a store's Bud Light display and mumbling something about trans people should be killed because it's terrorism. Should they bring him to G-Bay for a little good old fashioned torture or just dome him right in the store?

I didn't say political violence wasn't terrorism. I just found it amusing that kids getting killed is nbd but a few Teslas being set on fire on an empty lot is one of the worst atrocities known to man.

Setting aside your abject confusion for a sec, Leftists, along with everyone else in the country, are all subjected to the consequences of capitalism reserved for their particular class.

Picking up your confusion, the mass shooting events against the public are all signature conservative lashings out. Conservatives respond to the discipline and punishments of capitalism by blaming people who have no power. This is because conservatives are driven by fear. They will shoot up a black grocery store or a Walmart frequented by Latinos as if those people are somehow responsible for their material conditions in any way.

When a Lefty or a non conservative gets to the end of their rope they just kill themselves.

And so people in power who are actually responsible for harsh conditions basically never get killed. Of course there are exceptions. We just saw a healthcare executive shot down in the street. I was eagerly awaiting to see what political affiliation they held. Of course, Mangione's affiliation is like impossible to discern with elements of each side and everything in the middle.

You can see it in different ways. You can measure outcomes across different societies with different economic organization of course. Look at suicide rates or other incidence of, say, depression. Sometimes comparisons are difficult. Some country might be prescribing prozac left and right but that doesn't mean a less capitalist society wouldn't prescribe it if it could. You could look at road rage incidents and other types of crimes.

You can also assess it based on what we know are the proximate triggers of mental illness and observe levels of those factors in capitalism. Stress, isolation, domination, hierarchy, humiliation, dread, status anxiety, generalized anxiety, malnutrition, high population density, over stimulation, overwork, exhaustion...all these things can trigger mental illness and they all increase with increasing capitalist character. Capitalism wants an atomized worker who can't team up with others and fight against the exploitations of labor. Once atomized, it wants to use him up and spit him out just like any other machine. When you treat people like machines they will break down mentally, not just physically.

Man I had to log out for a second out of sheer curiosity to read the posts ITT from people I’ve blocked but you all are truly fucking sick irredeemable garbage

Big lolz that the tip of the spear is some POS in Italy

That's pretty much how things are with a lot of people - especially younger people.

The dude admired Elon Musk but wanted to cap a CEO. He was an environmentalist, but loves crypto, he advocated for equality but opposes" DEI. He's the perfect embodiment of someone who absorbs whatever is in front of him, regardless of whether those things contradict each other, which then peddles him to the point to where he becomes stir crazy on any given topic that's top of his news feed.

There really isn't anything appealing about someone with a personality like that because it's people like that, that are the most controllable and susceptible to whatever sensationalized horseshit that someone wants them to believe.

I would much rather not be aligned with unhinged mother****ers like that.

Once we agree all political violence is uncontroversially terrorism, we can discuss sentencing when found guilty of acts of terror. Not all acts are equal and sentencing can be proportional to the severity.

It just has to start much higher than if the same act didn't have political connotation. We can discuss how high like all other non-obvious political choices. It can be say 10 years for destruction of low value property for political terror, 20 years for higher value property, or anything else in that range.

Political violence is one of the most toxic and corrosive behaviours possible in society yes, ideally you want penalties so severe no rational people would ever entertain the idea of ever doing political terror in any form including any form of political violence against property, leaving only the suicidal/mentally ill as possible perpetrators (like for mass murders).

Not sure why you keep putting the dead kids as a comparison of anything, killing kids is already life no parole / death crime, so the penalty is appropriate already.

How society should deal with suicidal / mentally ill people who cannot be deterred from crime through penalties is a completly different matter than talking about the need of having penalties high enough to at least make it impossible for any rational person to ever entertain the idea of doing some set of behaviours as a society we consider completly abhorrent.

Libertarians routinely make that point and yes libertarians think that if a weapon is available to police / fbi / national guard , it should also obviously be available to the general public. There might be some exception related to weapons exclusively available to the federal government under a strong constitution that absolutely forbids any use of federal troops against civilians under all circumstances with no exception, but if law enforcement /troops can ever be deployed against american civilians, then it should be completly illegal under a proper reading of the 2a to regulate the access of whateve weapons they can have to the general public.

But anyway even if you disagree with the above libertarian stance, saying "well now the gvmnt has better weapons" makes it a STRONGER argument to AT LEAST allow SOME weapons to be very easy to get for the whole population, not the opposite lol.

And we had a recent real life example to prove that. Civilians don't require bombs / drones to make it hard enough for the government to enact and enforce military lockdowns like Italy, Spain, France, and some states in Australia had. If every civilian can be armed with lethal weapons at any time, enforcement of lockdowns is exponentially harder, to the point that politicians don't even try that, because frequent bloodshed would be inevitable. So even the most authoritarian governors didn't enact one. One of the worst violations of constitutional rights possible was avoided in the USA thanks to widespread ownership of basic guns.

This is a common argument in either (for or against) direction.

No one said political violence isn't terrorism. You misconstrued my saying that red government officials don't care about gun violence in schools because it doesn't affect them as implying that political violence isn't terrorism. I call that a Lucyism.

But I see now that you're pivoting from your absolute stance and a burned Tesla on an empty lot = execution, but a violent trashing of an AB display in a store full of shoppers = "not all acts of terror are equal"

You, sir, are a joke.

Burning 17 cars in a crowded are like it just happened in Rome is enough for me for the death penalty. Maybe burning one far from edifices might not be. Anyway it might be enough to have 20 years (actual, not discountable) in jail to send the number of non-mentally ill people who do that to 0. I care about deterrence for those cases more than to take away the criminal.

Btw a rightwing nuts setting am abortion physician car on fire for political terror should get the same as whomever it was that put a single Tesla on fire, that's the idea, and i don't see how you could disagree tbh. And in both cases it should be many more years of sentencing (or life no parole, or the DP, whatever the will of the people settles it at) than a divorced man or woman setting the ex car on fire, or a disgruntled ex-employee doing the same.

Because opportunities for political violence will always arise in the future (generic discontent for some political topic can degenerate) so unlike other type of crimes where we expect seriality a lot, the political terrorists of today won't probably be those 5 years from now.

So we need very very strong deterrance

Not really

To whoever owns this site

Don’t recommend this shit to me

I've often made this point. It's not just the weapons tho it's communications. You're going to talk on a cell phone to your fellow freedom fighter? Well the state can shut down your communications or use them to pinpoint your location. The state has been steadfastly transferring technology into approaches to suppress mass civil unrest or revolt. The state is aware of the level of small arms distributed across the country and it's not afraid of the civilian arsenal at all. It's not just the army it's the local police units who can overwhelm any challengers to the state's monopoly on violence.

They aren't afraid of civilian arsenal, but it would make things much more annoying for the state if they go full authoritarian as opposed to democratic gun legislation.

The state isn't likely to work with apple to get briefed on communication locations to snatch 500,000,000 guns for w/e objective - especially when the ratio of right wingers to lefties possessing the guns is about 150-1 as well as the fact that the military and police tend to be right leaning people.

Is this total guns? Because the ratio of gun owners is more like 2.5-1

For sure. Communications, intelligence, training, organization, etc.

I thought I typed 15-1. It around 2.5-1 for gun ownership between registered democrats and republicans but the amount of guns owned by a large portion of republicans is a quite a bit higher than I think people realize, especially in midwestern and southern states. It isn't uncommon for a lot of those people to hold 5-20 shotguns and rifles. They collect them over the years like garage tools and they never get rid of them. So yeah, I think the ratio is somewhere around 15-1 for total guns in possession.