Today, a Madden NFL 19 gaming tournament took place in Jacksonville Florda. Sadly, it appears a shooting occurred at the event, leading to four currently confirmed deaths. One of the competitors, Drini Gjoka claimed that they fled the area, and was grazed by a bullet while the shooter was active. Jacksonville's Police Department have stated that a shooting did happen, but have not explained any further details at this time, while also telling citizens to stay away from The Landing, where the tragedy took place. The tournament was a qualifier event, which was officially backed by EA Sports. At the time of writing, there are a total of 11 victims. A potential suspect was found dead at the scene.

Source: Twitter

Source 2: Twitter

Source 3: Local News Outlet

 

[Foxi4]

I'd love for you to try to present that argument to someone living on a Native American reservation today

Happily. I know it's a rough break, but America is the fruit of conquest, one party clearly won. Nobody who lives today has anything to do with that.

I wasn't specifically referring to blacks. Say a group of Muslim-Americans had shown up in public armed to the teeth and they moved to occupy a federal building. Do you really think any of them would still be alive today? And would the media have danced around the term, or would they have been called terrorists outright?

It depends on why they're there and whether or not they posed a threat to anyone besides themselves. The Waco siege taught the federal government that it's generally not a good idea to run in guns blazing.

What??? Reservation?? why they need to be protected like wild animals??
After all they are the best friend with the "US Native".....
Foxie4 seems he/she drank too much "American Dream" kool-aid

I have an insatiable thirst for freedom which may result in me being insensitive at times.

 

[WildDog]

I have an insatiable thirst for freedom which may result in me being insensitive at times.

Freedom and the US?? ahaha yes it's clear you took too much "American Dream" Kool Aid. But hey move to the US and enjoy being part of the only country with Freedom.

 

[8BitWonder]

...
I also love the argument that guns are the only way to ensure freedom and then the same people argue that without guns people would just use bombs which invalidates their earlier point.

Guns are the only way people could realistically protect themselves against a tyranny or an unjust shift in government, as impossibly unlikely as those seem.

I'd probably go as far as to say we'll collapse as a nation before any tyranny could ever happen.
But still, if you disarm the entire populace there would be nothing they could do against armed forces ordered by said tyrant or group.

 

[Xzi]

It depends on why they're there and whether or not they posed a threat to anyone besides themselves.

I seriously doubt that it does matter, they would immediately be perceived as being a larger threat because of their skin color. If you ever see a black or Muslim or Latino group doing something like this, chances are they've fully prepared themselves to die going into it. They wouldn't have the same sense of entitlement or delusions of grandeur that the Bundy gang did.

Regardless, the whole event was unfiltered stupidity. It's akin to burning down a public library because you don't like the lines at the DMV.

 

[Foxi4]

I seriously doubt that it does matter, they would immediately be perceived as being a larger threat because of their skin color. If you ever see a black or Muslim or Latino group doing something like this, chances are they've fully prepared themselves to die going into it. They wouldn't have the same sense of entitlement or delusions of grandeur that the Bundy gang did.

Regardless, the whole event was unfiltered stupidity. It's akin to burning down a public library because you don't like the lines at the DMV.

It also worked, so there's that. I don't know what your argument is. You were doubting the idea of an effective armed rebellion, I showed you an armed rebellion, you're unhappy with the example - what is it that you want, exactly?

 

[guily6669]

I had previously seen this on TV.

Sad emo kids giving bad reputation again, I bet news like games are bad and turn kids into killers will pop up again.

Which is stupid, psychopaths are the ones that kill ppl but lot of stupid brains paint games as the reason and not the persons with brain damage in first place...

 

[Xzi]

It also worked, so there's that. I don't know what your argument is. You were doubting the idea of am armed rebellion, I showed you an armed rebellion, you're unhappy with the example - what is it that you want, exactly?

Armed rebellion isn't occupying a single federal building, cowering in a little corner of the country, and begging people to send you supplies. There were no policy changes as a result of this, nor was the government overthrown. This again demonstrates the ability to easily terrorize your local community with guns, but it doesn't demonstrate the type of will and strategy needed to truly push back against tyranny. I'm 100% sure that the Bundy gang doesn't give a shit about constitutional violations as long as they occur under a Republican president/government.

 

[Foxi4]

Freedom and the US?? ahaha yes it's clear you took too much "American Dream" Kool Aid. But hey move to the US and enjoy being part of the only country with Freedom.

I'd love to, but I like the climate here, plus this is where my love lives, so I wouldn't move anywhere else, even for all the guns in the world. Maybe in the future - retirement in the states sounds good.

Armed rebellion isn't occupying a single federal building, cowering in a little corner of the country, and begging people to send you supplies. There were no policy changes as a result of this, nor was the government overthrown. This again demonstrates the ability to easily terrorize your local community with guns, but it doesn't demonstrate the type of will and strategy needed to truly push back against tyranny. I'm 100% sure that the Bundy gang doesn't give a shit about constitutional violations as long as they occur under a Republican president/government.

That's fine, you can have an opinion. Ultimately they succeeded in all of their stated goals.

 

[Xzi]

That's fine, you can have an opinion. Ultimately they succeeded in all of their stated goals.

Right, and their stated goals had nothing to do with armed rebellion against tyranny. It was about their own ego and wealth, the same motivations that have caused so many problems in government in the first place. In that sense, it was a good way to show solidarity with tyranny.

 

[PalindromicBreadLoaf]

Well that’s absolutely terrible. I heard about it in my World Studies class today, we whatched this exact video too. ‘Tis to sad that someone would have the mindset to do this.

 

[Foxi4]

Right, and their stated goals had nothing to do with armed rebellion against tyranny. It was about their own ego and wealth, the same motivations that have caused so many problems in government in the first place. In that sense, it was a good way to show solidarity with tyranny.

The whole debacle was about grazing cattle on state-owned land, something farmers were allowed to do for generations, or centuries if you look at the big picture. It had nothing to do with ego. It had everything to do with a ridiculous back payment request issued by the government.

 

[Xzi]

The whole debacle was about grazing cattle on state-owned land, as they have been for generations, or centuries if you look at the big picture. It had nothing to do with ego.

I'm aware. In other words, they were using state-owned land to enrich themselves because they let their own land go to shit. They were stealing from taxpayers, then got mad when they were finally held accountable for it. That has everything to do with ego and greed. It's the same type of reaction a child will give you when pointing out that they've done something wrong.

"I've been breaking the law for decades so I should be able to keep doing it" is not a valid argument.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm aware. In other words, they were using state-owned land to enrich themselves because they let their own land go to shit. They were stealing from taxpayers, then got mad when they were finally held accountable for it. That has everything to do with ego and greed. It's the same type of reaction a child will give you when pointing out that they've done something wrong.

Not exactly. BLM doubled the conservation area which now was supposed to include the allotment in question. As a sign of defiance Bundy refused to renew his grazing permit (1993) which until then he was happy to pay. Mounting a conservation effort on the allotment in question would greatly diminish his ability to operate as a cattle rancher. In response BLM wanted to charge him back payments in excess of a million dollars and seized his cattle which were "trespassing" on land that until 5 minutes ago was perfectly suitable for grazing. The grass is there, it costs you as a taxpayer absolutely nothing, I reject the premise that Bundy was taking advantage of taxpayer money *or* the premise that the state has a claim of ownership on grass in the middle of Nevada, although legal scholars disagree. As far as I'm concerned the land belongs to the people unless it is expressly private property, but this is a whole different argument that has nothing to do with the shooting. It was an armed act of defiance against the federal government that was successful, that's the only reason why it was brought up, your opinion of the Bundies is irrelevant.

 

[Xzi]

Not exactly. BLM doubled the conservation area which now was supposed to include the allotment in question.

Well which is it? Was he breaking the law for decades or was it a recent, sudden change? Everything I've read on the matter suggests the former, that they knew it wasn't land that belonged to them from the start.

It was an armed act of defiance against the federal government that was successful, that's the only reason why it was brought up, your opinion of the Bundies is irrelevant.

It's not a good example of armed rebellion, because again, it resulted in no policy or governmental changes whatsoever. They successfully fed their own selfish ego and wealth, but that's absolutely all. And if not for (likely purposeful) incompetence on the prosecution's behalf, they'd be in jail right now where they belong. In other words, their big "success" was breaking the law and facing no consequences; they were "successful" in the same way OJ Simpson was.

 

[Foxi4]

Well which is it? Was he breaking the law for decades or was it a recent, sudden change? Everything I've read on the matter suggests the former, that they knew it wasn't land that belonged to them from the start.

It's not a good example of armed rebellion, because again, it resulted in no policy or governmental changes whatsoever. They successfully fed their own selfish ego and wealth, but that's absolutely all. And if not for (likely purposeful) incompetence on the prosecution's behalf, they'd be in jail right now where they belong. In other words, their big "success" was breaking the law and facing no consequences; they were "successful" in the same way OJ Simpson was.

Okay. I'll explain this one more time and we'll leave it there because it's steering the conversation off-topic. The Bundies believe that they are entitled to graze their cattle on state-owned land as any land that is "owned" by the state is effectively public, not to mention that they reject the notion of state-owned land to begin with. The new conservation plan would make it impossible for them to graze their cattle on land that they were previously permitted to use, as per their permit. They refused to go along with the plan and did not renew their permit as an act of defiance. They believed that their right to utilise public land was infringed upon by the state, which they perceived as an act of state tyranny. The situation ended in an armed stand-off during which they defended what they believed were their rights and the government backed down. This is the definition of armed rebellion and civil disobedience. Rightly or wrongly the Bundies defended what they perceived as their rights, but this is not a thread about the Bundies. I don't support or disavow their actions, I have no opinion on the matter, I was merely citing a case which fits the criteria of armed citizens defending themselves from what they perceived as tyrannical government encroachment. Whether they're right or wrong, likable or not, or even widely supported or not is immaterial to the subject.

 

[Joom]

Sure you can, you arrest the private seller as an accomplice to the crime if their gun was used in one and they didn't administer a full background check.

Again, there's absolutely no way to enforce this. Not everyone has the resources nor the capability to do such a check, nor are they mind readers. Car manufacturers aren't held accountable for vehicular manslaughter cases, so why should gun sellers be if they're operating within the law? There are plenty of states that don't enforce anything on private sellers because it's redundant. Also, you might find this relevant article interesting.

https://www-baltimoresun-com.cdn.am...cksonville-david-katz-08272018-story,amp.html

 

[Xzi]

Okay. I'll explain this one more time and we'll leave it there because it's steering the conversation off-topic. The Bundies believe that they are entitled to graze their cattle on state-owned land as any land that is "owned" by the state is effectively public, not to mention that they reject the notion of state-owned land to begin with. The new conservation plan would make it impossible for them to graze their cattle on land that they were previously permitted to use, as per their permit. They refused to go along with the plan and did not renew their permit as an act of defiance. They believed that their right to utilise public land was infringed upon by the state, which they perceived as an act of state tyranny. The situation ended in an armed stand-off during which they defended what they believed were their rights and the government backed down. This is the definition of armed rebellion and civil disobedience. Rightly or wrongly the Bundies defended what they perceived as their rights, but this is not a thread about the Bundies. I don't support or disavow their actions, I have no opinion on the matter, I was merely citing a case which fits the criteria of armed citizens defending themselves from what they perceived as tyrannical government encroachment. Whether they're right or wrong, likable or not, or even widely supported or not is immaterial to the subject.

I'm willing to cede that it was technically an armed rebellion, but for the purposes of petty, selfish shit. If they wanted to make a real difference for people other than themselves, they could be doing that by taking a stand right now, as Trump's ridiculous tariffs have negatively impacted all US farming. Yet unsurprisingly there's not a peep from the Bundy clan. This is why I know that true, wide-scale rebellion will never happen. The majority of the 2A crowd is too dumb to see through to the real problems in America, and too shortsighted/selfish to fight against anything that doesn't impact them personally and directly. They also treat politics like cheering for a sports team, which is why they completely ignored it when Trump became the first president to state openly that he wanted to seize guns without due process.

 

[Sicsuicide]

I visit family in Florida twice a year and it's not scary whatsoever. I guess it just depends on what part you're in.

It's no different from anywhere else in the world you got the good places and the bad places.
The problem is televised news never shows anything good.
It's like a highlight reel for violence in the us

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Again, there's absolutely no way to enforce this. Not everyone has the resources nor the capability to do such a check, nor are they mind readers. Car manufacturers aren't held accountable for vehicular manslaughter cases, so why should gun sellers be if they're operating within the law? There are plenty of states that don't enforce anything on private sellers because it's redundant. Also, you might find this relevant article interesting.

https://www-baltimoresun-com.cdn.am...cksonville-david-katz-08272018-story,amp.html

Sure you can, if you don't have the resources you go to an intermediary who does and assumes responsibility from there on out. And if you choose not to do that, you have to be able to produce evidence that you took reasonable measures to check, for instance, arrest records

Those changes alone would go miles in closing the gun show loophole, and it could even be argued that it would aid in fighting the black market trade as well

 

[bodefuceta]

His reddit is "ravenchamps", anti-trump and on mental prescription drugs as usual.