LGBTQ Organisations Trying to BLOCK the release of the Transgender Shooter’s Manifesto. They know if released it will expose that this person was radicalised by the extreme elements in the LGBT community

submitted by [deleted] from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]UncleWillard56 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I agree about the access to deadly weaponry. As gender dysmorphia/phoria (whatever) is considered a mental disorder, it should preclude someone owning/buying a gun. You want gun control, there you go.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I agree with you: the insane should have zero right to access firearms. Actually, some sort of testing to ensure you are actually sane first should be required.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Oh I see how it is. The right to bear arms is only good while you're forgetting that it's not just for yourselves and people you don't like have that right too. Once you remember that it gives people you don't like the right to have guns you suddenly do a 180 and root for gun control.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I live in Canada and our culture is different. However, I think it is not too farfetched to believe that insane raving maniacs with guns are more likely to go postal than reasonable people. Just a hunch.

And it's not about me liking or disliking people. It's about putting lethal weapons in utterly insane people's hands, and I feel that is just asking for trouble. It's the same thing as not letting your 4-year-old play with your loaded pistol: if somebody is not responsible and competent, then THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

And why should it be up to you to decide what is insane and not insane? Unless someone is clearly at risk of acting violent, the only criteria you can use is that they simply disagree with your opinions, is it not? Why is it a problem when the left does this, but when you do the exact same thing it's suddenly justified?

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I won't even answer that. I think I'll just add you to my blocked list, since you are obviously of bad faith.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The fact that you feel the need to block me for disagreeing with you tells me you're here in bad faith.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I am not, you are just dumber than a pile of bricks, why else did M7 choose you. I don't want to block you for disagreeing with me, I want to block you in order to stop seeing your degenerate, communist inanities.

If you don't realize that a community where the suicide rate is 40% is mentally unstable, there's nothing you can say to me that I will find interesting.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The fact that you're calling me of all people a communist for being against gun control makes me question your mental state. And you think M7 and all the other admins are also communists, as if a communist would even tolerate a site like this one. If you want to see what communists think about this site look it up on places like AgainstHateSubreddits. It's not pretty.

You are basically saying, "I don't want to block you for disagreeing with me, I want to block you for disagreeing with me". Unless you think you are omniscient and can never be wrong, so everyone who has a different opinion than you is a "degenerate idiot".

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Nice sliding the goal posts. This is PRECISELY the bullshit I want to block you for. Arguing in bad faith, and all the rest of the BS. Yeah, I can't say that I have seen you vociferously defending the 2A before. And in fact, in this back and forth with me, you have not.

Once again, repeating myself because apparently stating it once is not enough for your astute brilliance: What about babies? Should they have access to firearms? No, they should not. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT. Same with the insane. It's not that hard.

But yeah keep moving those goal posts, that's REALLY USEFUL especially for an admin where good faith arguing is supposed to be the universal rule. Good job.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wrote ZERO ACCESS, not "rights suspended". Sounds like the same thing? It's not. If insane people live in a place where everybody and their uncle owning firearms is a necessity, then there is no way to achieve ZERO ACCESS. It's an IDEA. Ideas, by their nature, are not always applicable.

Certainly here in Canada this idea is applicable, for all that our country is totally fucked. I mean, it's fucking hard to get a firearm here. Of course tyranny has installed itself in the seats of power already and nobody has been able to do anything about it. Some people think voting is going to work. I sure hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, back to guns in the USA: yes they are a necessity, I never said anything else. Yes that does conflict with the idea of the insane not having any access. We were talking about principles, not applicable solutions.

The applicable solution is to go back to 1939 and the USA backing the GOOD side of the fight against communism. Of course, that's not really an applicable solution, it's still just an idea.

tl;dr: the USA are fucked, just as Nethanyahu promised 30 years ago.