19 children and 2 teachers killed in Texas school shooting (24 May 2022)
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
The police officers should be named and shamed cowardly does not even come close.
I would have been shot in the foot multiple times by my English Lit teacher.
I probably would have deserved it.
Oh dear.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We are at that point where something that looks like it comes from an onion article is a real, non-satirical tweet with real people unironically agreeing
This would make sense, if anyone was arguing that the way to end school shootings, was to get rid of schools.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We are at that point where something that looks like it comes from an onion article is a real, non-satirical tweet with real people unironically agreeing
What's just as bad is all of the comments to the tweet are supportive. Like we have said, gun culture runs deep for these idiots.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We are at that point where something that looks like it comes from an onion article is a real, non-satirical tweet with real people unironically agreeing
There are people arguing just that. But they obviously have their own despicable agenda.
Until the guys in the school who are armed to protect the kids, shoot the kids. Wonder what they will come up with then. Arms the kids of course, what could go wrong there.
@11101 and others talking about changing laws, money etc.
I think there are several reasons why these laws can't be changed.
1. The NRA's money is small but well targeted. Five figures is massive money for state-level races, and going against the NRA means your re-election is on a massive uphill trajectory (you're down 20k, your opponent is up 20k, people enthused about the issue have been told about all the evil you've done).
2. They are fighting from the top of the fort, their opponents are fighting uphill.
a. The status quo suits the NRA. The US government is structurally biased towards the status quo.
b. Certain readings of the constitution suit the NRA. The same readings suit business and religious conservatives generally. Hence, the US government is structurally biased towards those readings.
c. Their opponents are moderates (background control, ban on certain types of weapons) and they are absolutists. That fight always favours the absolutists.
d. Their opponents fight clean - protest marches, calling politicians, etc. That cannot change things. Even undirected money cannot.* OTOH, abortion opponents talked about murder, sin, showed gruesome photos, shot doctors, and are willing to inflict lots of collateral damage (imprison mothers who have miscarriages for example). Abortion opponents are ruthless, gun opponents aren't.
e. Single-issue anti-gun voter aren't common. If you're a very rare anti-gun conservative, you'll either buy into the gun propaganda after a few years, or you will tolerate it to get lower taxes or no abortion. If you're a much commoner anti-gun liberal, you might either already have an anti-gun representative, or your district might be way too red for it too matter, or maybe you worry more about other issues. After all if I followed through on my feelings about guns in the US, I'd not accept a job there and keep looking elsewhere. I didn't because mot probably nothing will happen to me personally.
*More about this - I don't think the trick to beating the NRA is to spend $251m on the same races where they spend $250m. Money in politics doesn't always work like that. The people the NRA supports tend to be people who support local businesses (or large businesses at the national level). Local businesses are the biggest influence on local and state politics. You are fighting not just the NRA, but the bourgeois class, and your big-spending will (in a way, correctly) be seen as an outsider getting involved.
I think there are several reasons why these laws can't be changed.
1. The NRA's money is small but well targeted. Five figures is massive money for state-level races, and going against the NRA means your re-election is on a massive uphill trajectory (you're down 20k, your opponent is up 20k, people enthused about the issue have been told about all the evil you've done).
2. They are fighting from the top of the fort, their opponents are fighting uphill.
a. The status quo suits the NRA. The US government is structurally biased towards the status quo.
b. Certain readings of the constitution suit the NRA. The same readings suit business and religious conservatives generally. Hence, the US government is structurally biased towards those readings.
c. Their opponents are moderates (background control, ban on certain types of weapons) and they are absolutists. That fight always favours the absolutists.
d. Their opponents fight clean - protest marches, calling politicians, etc. That cannot change things. Even undirected money cannot.* OTOH, abortion opponents talked about murder, sin, showed gruesome photos, shot doctors, and are willing to inflict lots of collateral damage (imprison mothers who have miscarriages for example). Abortion opponents are ruthless, gun opponents aren't.
e. Single-issue anti-gun voter aren't common. If you're a very rare anti-gun conservative, you'll either buy into the gun propaganda after a few years, or you will tolerate it to get lower taxes or no abortion. If you're a much commoner anti-gun liberal, you might either already have an anti-gun representative, or your district might be way too red for it too matter, or maybe you worry more about other issues. After all if I followed through on my feelings about guns in the US, I'd not accept a job there and keep looking elsewhere. I didn't because mot probably nothing will happen to me personally.
*More about this - I don't think the trick to beating the NRA is to spend $251m on the same races where they spend $250m. Money in politics doesn't always work like that. The people the NRA supports tend to be people who support local businesses (or large businesses at the national level). Local businesses are the biggest influence on local and state politics. You are fighting not just the NRA, but the bourgeois class, and your big-spending will (in a way, correctly) be seen as an outsider getting involved.
I agree, those numbers just don't amount to that much. I think it's more embedded in the culture of the electorate than the current republicans losing a small percentage of their campaign funds if they dropped their anti-regulation stances. NRA would brand them anti-gun and their challengers pro-gun, and that would sway the vote.
Great summation there.
There aren't 400 million Kinder Eggs scattered around the country and - more importantly - people can't use those Kinder Eggs to lethally resist anyone coming to take their chocolately goodness from them.
Unless they could bait them into choking on the toy.
Good post, except for the bolded which is ill-defined. But supposedly (?) you mean the sort of "American Gentry" that Patrick Wyman described in this essay a couple of years ago that was picked up both by The Atlantic and your beloved Jacobin: https://patrickwyman.substack.com/p/american-gentry?s=r
They have to take baby steps, surely they could take away assault rifles. Would anyone have a problem with that? Why are they needed? You can't buy bazooka's or grenades can you?
We had an Assault Weapons Ban, signed into law by Clinton. It was allowed to expire during the GW Bush administration. There’s not been enough votes in Congress to reinstitute it since.
And yes, the GOP would be apoplectic and liken it to Nazi Germany.
It's an extension of the previous line ("local businesses are the biggest influence on local and state politics.") Since most pro-gun politicians are also anti-regulation, to dislodge them you need to take on the local bourgeois (local businesses owners).
e - this was the one i'd read recently: https://johnganz.substack.com/p/real-americas-ruling-class?utm_source=twitter&sd=fs&s=r
Sad thing is that we already went through a decade of banning assault rifles. That just emboldened the NRA et al to redouble their efforts & further entrench themselves in the American politic. It would be extremely difficult to do again what we did in 1994.
The 2022 annual NRA convention coming up is in…. Texas.
Well what could possibly go wrong with that?
I bet you can’t go into Trumps speech armed. But teachers should have guns….?
Well what could possibly go wrong with that?
I bet you can’t go into Trumps speech armed. But teachers should have guns….?
You know me, fighting marxist language one post at a time
. But I agree with you about the nature of the challenge.It's so hard to get your head around why anyone would actually need one. It's just a completely different culture over there. I don't think anything will change its too ingrained in society.
Entire weekend is apparently gun free. Attendees will have to pass through metal detectors to enter.
Freedumb.
You fecked then basically, something needs to happen because it can't carry on like this, but what?
I’m just glad I made a decision decades ago to never have children. I was a bit too young for ‘duck & cover’ drills, a bit to old for active shooter drills, but my heart aches for today’s parents & children.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
1. While obviously it should happen, I do not see how this can be done without amending the constitution, or at least strong bilateral support. Which means that it cannot happen.
2-4. Should happen and I think it is doable with only Dems, but might require removing the filibuster.
5. Not sure how it can be done.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure why the idea of gun insurance has never been seriously considered
How so?
How on Earth can home schooling be done anyway? Most Americans are dumb as feck. Their homeschooling would probably be 'love Jesus' and reciting some (incorrect) Bible verse that they have seen in Facebook.
Christ
That’s exactly what kind of homeschooling conservatives want. The more babble thumpers they groom, the better.
Pretty soon we could just see hardened thumper charter schools & homeschooling.
Aye. This means that within a generation, the US becomes a third world country with a shitload of nuclear weapons.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Love how it’s always ‘there’s no need to bring politics into it’ (never mind the fact that he’s being asked this question as literally the US senator
) but in the same breath bang on about the democrats or a constitutional right that was implemented over two centuries agoIt’s good to know the NRA aren’t 100% stupid morons, they don’t want their ’customers’ being shot now do they?
Just 99.9%.
How can you have a gun convention without guns?
I don’t think the unwashed are attending, this is just the annual upper class circle jerk.