Fenix ammo, again. Now wont sell to biden supporters

[spat]

I have good friends in Germany, they have reminded me that when one mentions the name Hitler in an argument, the argument is over... This discussion is over!

Have a great day sir.

That is a ridiculous evasion.

The rise of Hitler has more and more bearing on events today.

Pointing out parallels between what's being done today and what happened in the prelude to one of the darkest times in history should lead to concern, not dismissal.

 

[FRB]

I stand by it.... NOTHING COMPARES TO WHAT HITLER DID - to use him to compare anything to is what it ridiculous IMB!

 

[spat]

I stand by it.... NOTHING COMPARES TO WHAT HITLER DID - to use him to compare anything to is what it ridiculous IMB!

The chinese are doing worse *today*.

Stalin eclipsed Hitler, he just had the benefit of being on the winning side.

There are many examples that are as bad or worse than Hitler, just less well publicized.

 

[Darth]

I imagine the other, greater, mass genocides compare to what hitler did...

 

[libertysnake]

I stand by it.... NOTHING COMPARES TO WHAT HITLER DID - to use him to compare anything to is what it ridiculous IMB!

Did you even read what I posted? I didn't even make any Hitler comparison. I'm talking about other people making the comparison. It was such a small point in the entire post.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I think this is a dangerous line for us to go down. I, for one, do not want to live in bi-partisan, self imposed, cancel culture loving surveillance state.

The dems brought it on, but it's up to us to stop it. We need to be more targeted in what we cancel, otherwise we're bringing an axe to an operation that calls for a scalpel.

Normally I would agree but if guns are bad, then they should stand by their principles. No guns for them.

 

[libertysnake]

Normally I would agree but if guns are bad, then they should stand by their principles. No guns for them.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold them accountable. But we should also be careful about to whom we apply this metric. It shouldn't be guilt by association alone. We have to realize people vote for a lot of reasons, not all of them gun related. Obviously most of us here have a particular view or had one on the 2020 election.

We should be targeting those people who are actively involved in promoting anti-gun legislation -- those who post about it on social media sources, or are politically involved in such. Those are the people to target with an appropriate level of cancel culture.

I don't like the idea of painting in broad strokes, as a lot of good people get sucked up in that as a result.

 

[tony]

If they are that close to the line that they get sucked up with broad strokes are they really good people or people that can be easily swayed and/or just go with the wining side?

 

[spat]

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold them accountable. But we should also be careful about to whom we apply this metric. It shouldn't be guilt by association alone. We have to realize people vote for a lot of reasons, not all of them gun related. Obviously most of us here have a particular view or had one on the 2020 election.

We should be targeting those people who are actively involved in promoting anti-gun legislation -- those who post about it on social media sources, or are politically involved in such. Those are the people to target with an appropriate level of cancel culture.

I don't like the idea of painting in broad strokes, as a lot of good people get sucked up in that as a result.

The left has so much success with this tactic precisely *because* the people on the edge are afraid of getting lumped in with the edge.

If we want to make it work we need to leverage that reaction as well.

This is not the time to say "maybe 1000 bombers was too many for Dresden" this is the time to lament that we couldn't send 2000.

 

[ManrisFrack]

First of all, I'm unconvinced that this behavior by Fenix is actually "cancelling" or "cancel culture." It's one small ammo remanufacturer choosing not to do business with a political faction.

Secondly, I don't think the right has the organization or the power to cancel any one person, say nothing of corporations or entire groups of people.

 

[Phazer]

I think this is a dangerous line for us to go down. I, for one, do not want to live in bi-partisan, self imposed, cancel culture loving surveillance state.

The dems brought it on, but it's up to us to stop it. We need to be more targeted in what we cancel, otherwise we're bringing an axe to an operation that calls for a scalpel.

I disagree.

An enemy is not vanquished until they deem themselves so. Fighting the Woketopian firestorm with a squirt pistol is pointless. We're now in a full blown culture war.

 

[Phazer]

Guys on this site: Fill out a political questionnaire to buy ammo? Tis the right thing to do.

Oppo research. Know thy enemy.

 

[Phazer]

Pointing out parallels between what's being done today and what happened in the prelude to one of the darkest times in history should lead to concern, not dismissal.

Bingo! Just ask Gina Carano.

The Woketopian Empire does not respond well to being called out as a totalitarian regime.

 

[spat]

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold them accountable. But we should also be careful about to whom we apply this metric. It shouldn't be guilt by association alone. We have to realize people vote for a lot of reasons, not all of them gun related. Obviously most of us here have a particular view or had one on the 2020 election.

We should be targeting those people who are actively involved in promoting anti-gun legislation -- those who post about it on social media sources, or are politically involved in such. Those are the people to target with an appropriate level of cancel culture.

I don't like the idea of painting in broad strokes, as a lot of good people get sucked up in that as a result.

The people who vote for the left do so for only 1 of 2 reasons.

Ignorance, or greed.

The people who know what's going on donit because they want a piece of that totalitarian pie.

The rest of their voters are simply blind (willfully or otherwise) to what's going on.

Guilt by association and collective punishment are fundamentally evil notions. They are also very effective. We are in an existential crisis. The left has abandoned the very concept of objective right and wrong (in fact, they consider objectivity *itself* racist at this point).

We did not win WWII by being the best sportsmen.

You do not win a streetfight by fighting fair.

We will not win this by "upholding virtue" better than they do. They successfully redefine virtue to be whatever tactic is best for them on an almost daily basis.

 

[libertysnake]

The people who vote for the left do so for only 1 of 2 reasons.

Ignorance, or greed.

The people who know what's going on donit because they want a piece of that totalitarian pie.

The rest of their voters are simply blind (willfully or otherwise) to what's going on.

Guilt by association and collective punishment are fundamentally evil notions. They are also very effective. We are in an existential crisis. The left has abandoned the very concept of objective right and wrong (in fact, they consider objectivity *itself* racist at this point).

We did not win WWII by being the best sportsmen.

You do not win a streetfight by fighting fair.

We will not win this by "upholding virtue" better than they do. They successfully redefine virtue to be whatever tactic is best for them on an almost daily basis.

I'm not going to go down the path of all or nothing. You realize that is a large contributing factor to where we are today, right? While we could just go "scorched earth" with regard to reprisals against the left, where does that leave us? Does it make us any better? Does it not just further this mutually assured surveillance? Does the scorched earth policy not just further the very thing we're trying to get away from?

It's like when we discuss security vs individual liberty. Sure to be 100% secure, we could just live in a fucking prison -- but we'd have no liberty. That's the trade off. There's a downside to the sliding scale. Going all or nothing provides none of either, so you have to find a balance that feels effective.

So this is the problem we have on our hands. This isn't just a simple street fight, where the goals are quite clear. This is a complex fight, and it requires nuance in the approach. It requires calculated blows, or else we will wind up hurting ourselves in the process.

 

[spat]

I'm not going to go down the path of all or nothing. You realize that is a large contributing factor to where we are today, right? While we could just go "scorched earth" with regard to reprisals against the left, where does that leave us? Does it make us any better? Does it not just further this mutually assured surveillance? Does the scorched earth policy not just further the very thing we're trying to get away from?

It's like when we discuss security vs individual liberty. Sure to be 100% secure, we could just live in a fucking prison -- but we'd have no liberty. That's the trade off. There's a downside to the sliding scale. Going all or nothing provides none of either, so you have to find a balance that feels effective.

So this is the problem we have on our hands. This isn't just a simple street fight, where the goals are quite clear. This is a complex fight, and it requires nuance in the approach. It requires calculated blows, or else we will wind up hurting ourselves in the process.

The time for those concerns has passed. A decade ago, when there were still rules to this fight, and the left were just reasonable but mistaken, you would have been right.

Now, none of the stuff you are worried about makes a difference if the left establish their dystopia.

I'd rather live in a flawed right wing society with some problems left over from that stuff that live in the society the left is building.

When your house is burning down, it is not the time to insist the firemen take their boots off to protect the new carpet.

I understand your notion that we are in this state because people are no longer following those rules, but that cannot be re-established unilaterally. So, unless you have a plan to make the left follow them again, then there is no reason we should.

 

[libertysnake]

The time for those concerns has passed. A decade ago, when there were still rules to this fight, and the left were just reasonable but mistaken, you would have been right.

Now, none of the stuff you are worried about makes a difference if the left establish their dystopia.

I'd rather live in a flawed right wing society with some problems left over from that stuff that live in the society the left is building.

When your house is burning down, it is not the time to insist the firemen take their boots off to protect the new carpet.

I understand your notion that we are in this state because people are no longer following those rules, but that cannot be re-established unilaterally. So, unless you have a plan to make the left follow them again, then there is no reason we should.

It's not about "following the rules." If we don't build a society in which we don't constantly have this "mutually assured surveillance," then that's like saying "I'm ok with a society in which we jail them, instead of us being jailed by them."

It's still a society in which you send innocent men and women to jail merely by association. It's still an unjust society. Perpetuating injustice to cure an injustice does not bring about justice.

 

[spat]

It's not about "following the rules." If we don't build a society in which we don't constantly have this "mutually assured surveillance," then that's like saying "I'm ok with a society in which we jail them, instead of us being jailed by them."

It's still a society in which you send innocent men and women to jail merely by association. It's still an unjust society. Perpetuating injustice to cure an injustice does not bring about justice.

We are no longer fighting for justice.

We are fighting for existence.

Once we have a reasonable assurance of that, we can worry about justice.

How many innocent Germans died in WWII at our hands ? Was it justice to kill some poor waiter just because he lived on the same side of the city as the munitions factory we were bombing ? Should we have worried about that ?

 

[libertysnake]

We are no longer fighting for justice.

We are fighting for existence.

Once we have a reasonable assurance of that, we can worry about justice.

How many innocent Germans died in WWII at our hands ? Was it justice to kill some poor waiter just because he lived on the same side of the city as the munitions factory we were bombing ? Should we have worried about that ?

This isn't the same thing as "some" collateral damage as a result of a greater cause.

This is a case of the very process you're trying to use to achieve your goals will consume the very people executing it. If you continue down the road of unrestricted guilt by association, it will become merely standard. You will have built the very thing you tried to stop, and helped put it into motion.

If you can't see how different this is, then I don't know what to tell you. Agree to disagree.

 

[spat]

This isn't the same thing as "some" collateral damage as a result of a greater cause.

This is a case of the very process you're trying to use to achieve your goals will consume the very people executing it. If you continue down the road of unrestricted guilt by association, it will become merely standard. You will have built the very thing you tried to stop, and helped put it into motion.

If you can't see how different this is, then I don't know what to tell you. Agree to disagree.

See Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima.

And note that those were conducted once we were winning. Imagine how much more justified they would have been in 1941.

You cannot unilaterally bring back the norms you want. The only way to return to the days when they were respected is to remind the enemy why they do not want to play that game.

Right now the left has no reason whatsoever to want to play by those rules.

 

[Vinson57]

Mental evaluation bills for state or federal that they propose will be done by leftist females' personnel. Past 30 are many of them and ready to get their 2nd cat. Their fine tuned hypergamy and other selection methods, will be used to not approve you as they identified you as right wing and now a domestic terrorist. Pickup truck, camo hat or jacket, tatts, smell bad etc...The denial will be publicly recorded and you will not be about to reapply for a period of time and mention if you ever been denied. Also they will not even decide what the evaluation will be for a vey long time after these bills go into law and then it will be, who will do them and how big will be the backlog. So this in itself, going for a law has evil intentions and still there are these moralists preachers. These people will have a hard time with small unit tactics with their odd man out attitude and the group will be loosing you.