RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Ghostmaker]

It's about to get worse now that Roe has been overturned.  Get ready for riots all weekend long.

Yup, just saw that.

The irony is that it doesn't outlaw abortion. It simply devolves the issue back to the states. Do people think California or New York are going to ban abortion tomorrow?

The Dems COULD have fended this off with a federal law, but that would've taken time away from their grifting, I suppose. Easy way to make money and votes. Even their favorite, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, pointed out it was a shaky precedent and could fall but nah, let's just wave it around some more!

I don't think the zeitgeist is particularly keen on abortion on demand either. The left badly fucked up when they went from 'safe, legal, and rare' to 'shout your abortion' and celebrating it like some kind of horrid sacrament. Well done, lefties; you played yourself.

[jeff37923]

It's about to get worse now that Roe has been overturned.  Get ready for riots all weekend long.

I hope that you are wrong about the riots, but I'm afraid that you may be right.

[3catcircus]

It's about to get worse now that Roe has been overturned.  Get ready for riots all weekend long.

Yup, just saw that.

The irony is that it doesn't outlaw abortion. It simply devolves the issue back to the states. Do people think California or New York are going to ban abortion tomorrow?

The Dems COULD have fended this off with a federal law, but that would've taken time away from their grifting, I suppose. Easy way to make money and votes. Even their favorite, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, pointed out it was a shaky precedent and could fall but nah, let's just wave it around some more!

I don't think the zeitgeist is particularly keen on abortion on demand either. The left badly fucked up when they went from 'safe, legal, and rare' to 'shout your abortion' and celebrating it like some kind of horrid sacrament. Well done, lefties; you played yourself.

As with *everything*, leftist activists are useful idiots who don't understand the ruling. Sentient enough to be a trainable, but not enough to think for themselves...

[KindaMeh]

It's about to get worse now that Roe has been overturned.  Get ready for riots all weekend long.

I hope that you are wrong about the riots, but I'm afraid that you may be right.

Wouldn't be surprised. If they'll riot over a lack of statistical evidence that black people are being shot by police officers, they'll riot over the definite reduction in scope of what they assume are their rights. Also, get ready for potentially more attempted assaults on justices. Likewise, I bet RPG.net will at least eventually have a few things to say about this recent development, but will not allow for even a smidge of debate over actual philosophy or constitutionality. Just a pity party.

[Ghostmaker]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

[Armchair Gamer]

Wouldn't be surprised. If they'll riot over a lack of statistical evidence that black people are being shot by police officers, they'll riot over the definite reduction in scope of what they assume are their rights. Also, get ready for potentially more attempted assaults on justices. Likewise, I bet RPG.net will at least eventually have a few things to say about this recent development, but will not allow for even a smidge of debate over actual philosophy or constitutionality. Just a pity party.

  They decreed back in May that 'the right to abortion' is a 'human right', and anyone who criticized it would be considered 'anti-human rights.'

[KindaMeh]

Wouldn't be surprised. If they'll riot over a lack of statistical evidence that black people are being shot by police officers, they'll riot over the definite reduction in scope of what they assume are their rights. Also, get ready for potentially more attempted assaults on justices. Likewise, I bet RPG.net will at least eventually have a few things to say about this recent development, but will not allow for even a smidge of debate over actual philosophy or constitutionality. Just a pity party.

  They established back in May that 'the right to abortion' is a 'human right', and anyone who criticized it would be considered 'anti-human rights.'

Wow. Didn't know that, but not at all surprised.

[Trond]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

I guess for the people on the right, the silver lining is that every riot that threatens people's lives and property makes it more difficult to argue against gun rights.

[Ghostmaker]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

I guess for the people on the right, the silver lining is that every riot that threatens people's lives and property makes it more difficult to argue against gun rights.

Sort of. I'm not happy people get hurt or killed, or lose their livelihoods to feral pseudohumans who go around looting, burning, etc.

But it does draw things into sharp focus. Especially when you toss up next to the left's perpetual attempts to hobble or disrupt law enforcement and criminal justice. They say they want reform, but then they turn around and simply refuse to actually DO anything other than wave their hands and invoke 'social justice'.

Good God, I stand by a comment I made before: any candidate who stated they would seek to end civil asset forfeiture would get my vote. But that's never brought up, because CAF is far too useful to totalitarians regardless of political flavor.

[KindaMeh]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

I guess for the people on the right, the silver lining is that every riot that threatens people's lives and property makes it more difficult to argue against gun rights.

Sort of. I'm not happy people get hurt or killed, or lose their livelihoods to feral pseudohumans who go around looting, burning, etc.

But it does draw things into sharp focus. Especially when you toss up next to the left's perpetual attempts to hobble or disrupt law enforcement and criminal justice. They say they want reform, but then they turn around and simply refuse to actually DO anything other than wave their hands and invoke 'social justice'.

Good God, I stand by a comment I made before: any candidate who stated they would seek to end civil asset forfeiture would get my vote. But that's never brought up, because CAF is far too useful to totalitarians regardless of political flavor.

CAF may not legally violate due process, but it should. It's literally criminal justice seizing somebody's property with no evidence of wrongdoing. You should at a bare minimum need judicial approval and have it be tied to a specific filed charge.

[jeff37923]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

I guess for the people on the right, the silver lining is that every riot that threatens people's lives and property makes it more difficult to argue against gun rights.

Maybe. It isn't how I want my gun rights to be protected. I am glad I have the option, though.

[Ghostmaker]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

I guess for the people on the right, the silver lining is that every riot that threatens people's lives and property makes it more difficult to argue against gun rights.

Sort of. I'm not happy people get hurt or killed, or lose their livelihoods to feral pseudohumans who go around looting, burning, etc.

But it does draw things into sharp focus. Especially when you toss up next to the left's perpetual attempts to hobble or disrupt law enforcement and criminal justice. They say they want reform, but then they turn around and simply refuse to actually DO anything other than wave their hands and invoke 'social justice'.

Good God, I stand by a comment I made before: any candidate who stated they would seek to end civil asset forfeiture would get my vote. But that's never brought up, because CAF is far too useful to totalitarians regardless of political flavor.

CAF may not legally violate due process, but it should. It's literally criminal justice seizing somebody's property with no evidence of wrongdoing. You should at a bare minimum need judicial approval and have it be tied to a specific filed charge.

I assert that it DOES violate due process, as it strips someone of property and puts the onus on them to 'prove' it was not gained through illegal means.

A lot of people do not know this, but CAF does not require charges to be filed against a person. It doesn't even require a criminal proceeding --it's a civil case, hence, civil asset forfeiture.

So what you get is some guy who's traveling with a large quantity of cash. Is he up to no good? Maybe, but last I checked it wasn't illegal to do so. Dumb, yes, but not illegal. He gets stopped and the cash seized. But they don't charge him, oh no. Legally, what you get is charges filed against the cash -- so you get a docket that looks like "City of Podunk vs $25,000' or 'Town of Scumandvillainy vs 2022 Camaro'. And then our victim has to hire an attorney to get it back.

No. This is wrong. I have told cops to their faces, 'If you support CAF, don't even ask me for a quarter.' The problem is that it's amazingly attractive. It makes speed traps and revenue farming with tickets look tiresome in comparison. Voters love it too, at least initially, because it means taxes don't need to be raised to fund the police department. But what it amounts to is theft under color of law. And it's a miracle we haven't had someone react violently to it.

[KindaMeh]

Riots?

My response: Do it. DO IT. Come on, stop singing it and BRING IT.

But don't send anyone you're fond of.

I guess for the people on the right, the silver lining is that every riot that threatens people's lives and property makes it more difficult to argue against gun rights.

Sort of. I'm not happy people get hurt or killed, or lose their livelihoods to feral pseudohumans who go around looting, burning, etc.

But it does draw things into sharp focus. Especially when you toss up next to the left's perpetual attempts to hobble or disrupt law enforcement and criminal justice. They say they want reform, but then they turn around and simply refuse to actually DO anything other than wave their hands and invoke 'social justice'.

Good God, I stand by a comment I made before: any candidate who stated they would seek to end civil asset forfeiture would get my vote. But that's never brought up, because CAF is far too useful to totalitarians regardless of political flavor.

CAF may not legally violate due process, but it should. It's literally criminal justice seizing somebody's property with no evidence of wrongdoing. You should at a bare minimum need judicial approval and have it be tied to a specific filed charge.

I assert that it DOES violate due process, as it strips someone of property and puts the onus on them to 'prove' it was not gained through illegal means.

A lot of people do not know this, but CAF does not require charges to be filed against a person. It doesn't even require a criminal proceeding --it's a civil case, hence, civil asset forfeiture.

So what you get is some guy who's traveling with a large quantity of cash. Is he up to no good? Maybe, but last I checked it wasn't illegal to do so. Dumb, yes, but not illegal. He gets stopped and the cash seized. But they don't charge him, oh no. Legally, what you get is charges filed against the cash -- so you get a docket that looks like "City of Podunk vs $25,000' or 'Town of Scumandvillainy vs 2022 Camaro'. And then our victim has to hire an attorney to get it back.

No. This is wrong. I have told cops to their faces, 'If you support CAF, don't even ask me for a quarter.' The problem is that it's amazingly attractive. It makes speed traps and revenue farming with tickets look tiresome in comparison. Voters love it too, at least initially, because it means taxes don't need to be raised to fund the police department. But what it amounts to is theft under color of law. And it's a miracle we haven't had someone react violently to it.

More people need to read and know this stuff for sure. Knew most of what you said, but wasn't aware it was used so typically to fund departments to that extent of reliance.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

It always amazes me how sadly ignorant, and pathetically educated Liberals are, especially about guns, the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, and the history and politics of our Founding Fathers.

The 2nd Amendment was not written so that citizens could keep rifles to hunt deer. However, such an aspect is a secondary benefit, and also reflects a critically important right, and capability.

To be blunt, the 2nd Amendment was written so that citizens would be fully armed and capable of killing police, militia, and professional troops of the government, and reserving a distinct capacity of the citizenry to forcibly exterminate a corrupt and evil government, so as to replace it with a more suitable and righteous government that respects and honours the people of the nation.

Furthermore, while the specifics of defending yourself, your home, and local community in those long ago days featured outlaws, brigands, rebels of various flavours, as well as bands of savage Indians, and may at first glance seem alien and way different from us currently--the basic principle is for the average man, the American citizen, remain fully armed and equipped to protect himself, his home, and his local community, from whatever dangers or threats that may come his way.

The ideology then--reflected through the spirit of the US Constitution--is that every man not only has a God-given right to be armed and to protect himself--but a primary duty and responsibility to do so. It is all part of cultivating the spirit and society of a strong, and fiercely independent culture. It is not a man's constant obligation to meekly wait like a subdued sheep for "The Authorities" to arrive and take care of the problem. In many cases, as noted--the 'Authorities" themselves may be the problem that needs to be eliminated. In other instances and circumstances, it is the citizen that is considered to be fully ready and able to take care of business.

So, in our modern era, and especially so in these harsh and increasingly dangerous times that we live in, the genius and foresight of establishing the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is crystal clear. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has both primary applications, as well as secondary applications. The 2nd Amendment is the strong foundation to establishing freedom, liberty, and independence for the American people, and exercising and protecting this absolutely fundamental right is under constant threat and attack from petty government bureaucrats, politicians, and public demagogues at large everyday. Every good American must be ready and get informed and involved in keeping our gun rights strong.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[KindaMeh]

Also, I am like, 99.9% sure that if anybody tried to bring up CAF on police reform on RPG.net, they would immediately be at best chided for steering the conversation away from their subject of worship, minority victimization. Or heck, how a more widespread use the 2nd amendment can help take the burden off police, which I think is part of what SHARK just posted. Most direct crimes that fail, and many never attempted, are stopped with a gun, either its use or just its presence.