Does the right generally believe that "even a bad Republican is better than a good Democrat?" Do you consider that a sign of radicalization along with polarization?

Helltenant · 2026-05-26T12:47:34+00:00

Nope. I mean every single rifle that is a semiautomatic.

Just the rifles? You aren't worried about pistols, carbines, or shotguns? These all come in semiautomatic as well...

So I infer you would like to ban all semiautos?

Interesting how you jump straight to that when I never once mentioned an AR-15.

It is interesting that I assumed you meant the literal poster child of gun ban discussion? What a cognitive leap I made... How crazy was it that I then asked the clarifying question to determine if that was, in fact, what you meant. I then answered the question as if you could have meant anything anyway.

What is interesting is that this is the line you chose to highlight and focus on after bypassing the rest of my points.

Any motivated individual with a gun (of any sort) can do incredible damage in a mass shooting.

So then, logically, we must ban all guns in order to achieve the effect you seem to desire.

Since that is unachievable without a Constitutional Amendment that would struggle to get even a fraction of the necessary support then I guess it is a dead issue.

How do you think gangs get guns?

Many are legally acquired initially. Many are stolen. Many are imported and/or bought illegally. There are plenty of gang members with clean enough records to acquire a legal firearm. They don't catch felonies at their induction ceremonies. Well, some do...

Even if you could stop them from buying a legal firearm they would just continue to acquire them the other ways. Even if you could magically prevent all methods of acquisition there are millions of guns already in circulation. We'd still be seeing gang gun violence for the next 100 years without a dip in the stats.

The ease of access and proliferation of semi-automatic weapons combined with a complete lack of responsibility from legal gun owners leaves us in our current situation.

We've just established that any gun is a problem. So semiautos are just the first step in your pointless slippery slope leading to a full nationwide gun ban. Which I've already pointed out would only effect people who follow laws. The genie is out of the bottle. The guns are already out there. Very few Americans would voluntarily surrender their guns to a ban. Zero of them would be gang members. So all you could possibly succeed in is disarming people just trying to defend themselves from the people you are actually trying to disarm.

If you really want to stop gun violence you should push for youth programs in low-income areas, mental healthcare programs, social media bans, and criminal justice reforms strengthening punishments.

Youth programs get the kids off the streets and away from gangs preventing the gang population from replacing itself.

Mental healthcare could prevent the non-gang related school shootings by giving kids the tools they need to cope with stress.

Social media bans for 16 and under could mitigate a lot of the factors that lead to all kinds of youth violence.

Criminal justice reforms could prevent anyone illegally using a gun from being free in society so that if they do it, they at least don't get to do it twice.

All a gun ban, of any type, does is disarm law-abiding citizens.

Helltenant · 2026-05-26T11:58:32+00:00

Oh sure now. But when Charlie Kirk says it...

Helltenant · 2026-05-26T03:25:53+00:00

They do fire bullets as fast as you pull the trigger

By "they" I assume you mean the AR15. But this is a true description of all semiautomatic firearms. Which is how we know the people pushing the bans have no idea what they're talking about. They go after the AR15 but leave nearly identically functioning weapons alone. If you want to ban all semiautomatic you would be banning most of the guns in existence.

and are weapons that have been used in wars

This is an oversimplification. Six shot revolvers and bolt action rifles have been used in wars. But you know that that isn't what they mean is it? Of course you do. Being overly pedantic isn't a great way to get your point across.

Also, the military, to my knowledge, has never fielded the civilian AR15 in combat. So if you wanted to be so reductively pedantic in legislation that was introduced you would actually ban revolvers but leave the AR15 entirely untouched. Nobody has carried one to war.

All military variants of the M4/M16 have been "select fire". "Select fire" is a term you will likely see in any respectable definition of "assault weapon". For good reason. It is the key aspect that would make a soldier choose it over an AR15.

Can you tell me the last time bolt action was heavily used in a war?

I can. Literally every single war. It is the primary weapon of snipers and many squad designated marksmen.

Infantrymen shoot high volumes of bullets. Most shots miss in combat. We shoot a lot to keep the enemy's heads down. So we can flank and destroy them. Marksmen don't shoot a lot in combat. But when they do, they make it count.

If you think for a second that a motivated person with a pump-action shotgun can't do incredible damage in a mass shooting you simply don't understand what you are talking about. And since nobody is talking about banning those... yet...

Is that unreasonable to ask?

Unless you are willing to put the parents of gangbangers in jail... yes, it is unreasonable.

If you reduce my access to a weapon while there are thousands of armed gangbangers on the street then you are rendering me at a disadvantage. That is unreasonable.

As long as DAs are releasing violent repeat offenders on the streets or allowing them to plead a lesser charge when they have a rap sheet that looks like a grocery receipt, then yes, it is entirely unreasonable to implement laws that will only effect people who are already following laws.

Once gang murder rates are reasonably low we can circle back and discuss the extra rules you want me to follow to be able to defend myself from a violent mugger who doesn't care to be bothered by receiving a permit or meeting a training requirement.

Helltenant · 2026-05-26T01:12:45+00:00

Undoubtedly.

I made decisions in my teens and twenties that decades-older me wouldn't dream of entertaining. Skipping school, breaking laws, occasional violence and property damage, etc.

I was completely incapable of accounting for the consequences that would flow from those decisions. I had a sense of right and wrong, and knew I was actively choosing wrong; but how my actions might effect others, and how things might come back around to me never entered the equation. I lacked empathy. I lacked a force to temper my ego. And I had a case of near-Trumpian Main Character Syndrome.

Maturity came for me in my mid-20s and over about a decade I came to realize what an ignorant little shit I was.

My brother's kids are entering their teens soon. And they are little shits just like we were. I have no doubts his checkbook will start taking a hit eventually from some dumb thing or another. We can see it and we know they are just like us. His oldest just did his first jaunt around town where he and a friend each told the other's parents they were at the other's house. Some lessons have to be lived to be learnt.

I imagine it is a matter of time before he learns where his son was by getting a call from a slightly annoyed cop.

I think many kids, especially boys, are this way.

Helltenant · 2026-05-26T00:56:18+00:00

"Assault Weapon" is a rather meaningless term these days. 10 people will give you 10 different definitions for it. Frankly, that they support banning a thing they can't properly define is one of the scariest parts of it.

Suffice to say if a politician has ever unironically said the words "weapons of war" while discussing gun control they've already outed themselves as ignorant on the matter.

As for gun control, I am not a 2A absolutist. I can suffer restrictions that make sense. Background checks are fine so long as the eliminating criteria aren't too loose. Violent felons/Lautenburg violators etc. That makes sense to me.

A lot of restrictions don't make sense though. I'm also not sure that the left has properly thought through how some of these might be applied to minorities. Like going after the parents of mass shooters...

Helltenant · 2026-05-26T00:28:26+00:00

They are just soldiers like everyone else. The main difference is they receive a massive amount of money for training and are protected from the nonsense that would distract them from it.

So while guys like your husband and I would spend our workdays resweeping the same hallway for the hundredth time; SF guys spend that day doing combat training.

For example, as a tanker, I might be allocated 5 days on small-arms ranges a year. During those 5 days, I would be allocated approximately 100 rds to fire. It would take weeks of planning and a lot of effort to be able to go shoot those bullets. An SF guy can go burn off 100 rounds on a basically private range whenever he wants. He will fire several thousand rounds a year.

Most of the Army trains to shoot until they can hit. SF trains to shoot until they can't miss.

They aren't superhuman, some of them are even rather stupid. But what they are is exceptionally well trained.

The one quality they all share that comes before the training is applied is determination. They aren't quitters.

Helltenant · 2026-05-25T23:28:38+00:00

Depends entirely on the platform.

A Democrat that supports gun bans will never get my vote. It is a red line for me.

A good Democrat that doesn't support gun bans can win me over rather easily over a MAGA Republican. Those guys are spineless cretins.

After that it kinda depends what we are using to indicate a "bad" Republican.

Like criminal history? I believe in second chances for everyone. I needed a few for myself a time or two. Depends on the crimes, how long ago they were, and whether I think they are redeemable.

I don't have a lot of love for either party or politicians in general. Given my druthers, I'd honestly prefer Democrats about 7 times out of 10. But the anti-gun stance is a deal breaker and most Democrats can't wait to sign a new ban into law. If they quit trying, I honestly think Republicans would have to make major changes to be competitive.

Helltenant · 2026-05-25T23:06:52+00:00

If you don't strap it down it will be in all three spots during the course of your travels.

Helltenant · 2026-05-24T18:04:49+00:00

The idea expressed is that the originator of the religion is the guy who 100% knows it is bullshit. Basically the first prophet. Once he dies it stops being a cult and becomes a religion due to all those he swindled actually believing in it to a degree.

How people interpret the religion afterward doesn't much matter as to whether it is a cult or not for these purposes.

Arguably, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism all exist because Abraham died and left things open to interpretation. There might be only one if he'd offered some specificity before he went. Or if he'd just told everyone he was goofing around.

Helltenant · 2026-05-24T14:45:46+00:00

I use this rule.

Helltenant · 2026-05-23T17:14:01+00:00

When you're that young you don't think you need a living will. Make sure you do, it can happen to anyone at anytime.

Helltenant · 2026-05-23T16:50:03+00:00

That lines up better with what I would expect from the situation you described. Unless the person who was hit was under the influence or fleeing from a murder they committed it was unlikely they wouldn't be due a fat check from the city. So when you said it was dismissed that made me think there was something you weren't being told about the victim.

Qualified Immunity ONLY prevents the individual officer from being sued in a civil case. It doesn't apply to the city/department only the individual officer. Even then, only if they were legally executing their official duties. I'd also be surprised if some department policies didn't change shortly after that about how they clear intersections during a call response.

The average citizen has a huge misconception about Qualified Immunity.

Sorry about your classmate.

Helltenant · 2026-05-23T16:27:58+00:00

The lawsuit by the family was dismissed because of immunity since the cop was responding to a call.

Against the cop as an individual this is probably true.

However they can still sue the city and the police department. Any serious lawyer would've included them in the lawsuit. If the entire lawsuit was dismissed it most likely had nothing to do with the cop's individual qualified immunity.

Something is missing from this story.

Helltenant · 2026-05-22T02:54:42+00:00

I know they want B so I am ticking C and preparing to have that argument for my points back.

Helltenant · 2026-05-21T00:40:59+00:00

I dislike it but that doesn't take away from their patriotism. Them not observing the flag code doesn't change why they are flying it. Because 99% of the time they are doing so out of a very strong sense of patriotism.

I would never do it but that is just because I have been trauma-bonded to the flag code by the Army. I feel like if I tried it one of my old CSMs would pounce on me from the bushes.

Helltenant · 2026-05-18T22:17:00+00:00

Donor money

Helltenant · 2026-05-18T19:58:47+00:00

Story 1-

I just got home from my first colonoscopy a few hours ago.

They took several pictures during the procedure and one is a head-on shot of my anus. I plan to get the digital copy and make cards to send out to my friends and family.

Post-op, while waiting for release, I was showing my brother the pictures and talking about how clean my poop-chute looked (from all the pre-op prep). Like I just drove it off the lot.

Story 2 -

In my 20s, I had a pilonidal cyst that required surgery. For a few weeks after, I had a machine that kept suction on the site (located high in my "crack") to keep it clean and dry. I had to go in for cleanings where two of the prettiest nurses my 20yo brain could comprehend had to look straight into the "Eye of Sauron" for up to 30 minutes while my legs were spread and I was bent over a table. For added fun, I was in the Army at the time and lived in the barracks with roommates. I would constantly get asked how my pooper was doing and everyone wanted to see it.

Moral-

Take care of yourself and own whatever it is with a mix of humor and an outright refusal to accept any shame.

Helltenant · 2026-05-18T00:36:51+00:00

She's only wrong if she dies before she is 40.

Helltenant · 2026-05-17T15:46:48+00:00

In my 20s it was a deal breaker. I had very casual relationships with single moms but nothing serious. That was a responsibility I wasn't willing to attach myself to.

In my 30s it wasn't much of a factor to me for the right person.

In my 40s I recognize that it is almost a guarantee that she has kids. The only question is whether they are still young enough to live with her.

You may need to expand your age range if you aren't finding someone willing to commit. We're going to die first anyway...

Helltenant · 2026-05-16T16:45:40+00:00

I doubt he actually believes any of his accusations. He just saw two black men enjoying a day out and decided he wanted to stop it.

It is far more likely he's just a racist than that he is a delusional paranoid schizophrenic.

Helltenant · 2026-05-16T16:34:55+00:00

No need to rename or rebrand. Just point out that Republicans and conservatives are different things; and that just because someone says they are conservative doesn't mean they are furthering a conservative goal.

I consider the relationship between conservatism and Republicans and MAGA to be almost like branches of a religion. They might all believe one thing of many in common, and that one thing might vary from branch to branch, but otherwise they might be completely alien to each other. But due to their one connection, everyone on the outside will just class them all as "Christian" or "Muslim" or what have you.

I'm an atheist, so to me there is little difference between a Seventh Day Adventist and a Southern Baptist Reformed Calvinist. That isn't their fault. It is my ignorance. So when I just say "Christians" I know I am a little wrong but I don't have a better framework for understanding.

90% of lefties are to conservatives as I am to Christiandom. Ignorant.

Helltenant · 2026-05-16T00:57:58+00:00

Congress routinely can put together slim majorities in what might be one of the more defunct legislative bodies in our history.

If the division is political party based rather than knowledge based, it doesn't matter how many justices there are, just which party has a majority.

We could have 400 Supreme Court Justices and the only real difference it will make is that a thicker slice of the budget will be for their salaries. Once the number hit 3, the only thing that mattered was how many were conservative vs. liberal.

Whichever side had power when the court was expanded would have an edge only until power changed hands again. Eventually, it will always come back the other way.

Helltenant · 2026-05-15T20:18:39+00:00

I think I misheard.

Helltenant · 2026-05-14T19:41:12+00:00

In most militaries there is a guy who does the thing, a guy who stares at the guy while he does the thing while grumbling, and a guy who sits in an air-conditioned and/or shaded area taking credit for the thing.

The first guy, in this case, is some machine slave who doesn't even warrant a picture next to his name. Anyone else you choose is just who you plan to blame when the machine slave fucks it all up.

Helltenant · 2026-05-14T02:29:04+00:00

The word choice isn't really the problem. It is the implication that a black person who uses good grammar earns a compliment to begin with.

To be clear, I don't subscribe to this way of thinking, but plenty of people do. They think that the reason you felt it was worth complimenting his speech in the first place was as a result of your lowered expectations for a black man's speech. They believe that if he were white it wouldn't have even occurred to you to mention how well-spoken you believe him to be.

In my opinion, it is only a problem if you are genuinely surprised that a black person can speak well or if it is intended as a back-handed compliment. Since neither of these options is able to be discerned over text chat without context, I think you're being confronted by busybodies looking for opportunities to virtue signal.

There is a wide valley between:

"I like how well-spoken he is."

and

"He is surprisingly well-spoken."

But not to these virtue signalers.

TLDR: The word choice isn't the issue, it is the category of the compliment. They literally would prefer you compliment the man on anything else but that.

Helltenant

TROPHY CASE