If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 502
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1724 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



502 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 12:04:34 PM

Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though


Tresspassed. LOL.
 
2012-12-03 12:05:55 PM

vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"


You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government
 
2012-12-03 12:08:50 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government


It is in what I believe the Constitution says.
 
2012-12-03 12:08:59 PM

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.


You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?
 
2012-12-03 12:10:13 PM
If I were a gun dealer, I would basically promote every organization and website that predicted government confiscation of all guns.

Ever watch the survivalist shows on NatGeo? Some of those guys have arsenals that make Koresh's look like a handful of popguns.
 
2012-12-03 12:12:39 PM

Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then


this is about arming the "slaves" though.
 
2012-12-03 12:17:02 PM

skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.


Next up; armed gangs of uppity women who are tired of working for 30% less
 
2012-12-03 12:17:26 PM

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.


In reality, according to their own policies, they should have endorsed Obama or neither candidate. Instead they shamelessly endorsed Romney putting to rest any argument that they are not in the pocket of the GOP.
 
2012-12-03 12:17:43 PM

Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then


you need to do a little research. Find out how many slaves were on the average plantation and how many white folks were on that same plantation. Then figure out how long it takes to re-load those old muskets and you will find out real soon that guns were not going to save the lives of the whites.

They used coercion, not fire arms to keep the slaves in line.
 
2012-12-03 12:20:08 PM

dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*


Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.
 
2012-12-03 12:20:27 PM

dittybopper: The NRA is a single issue organization. Period.


The single issue being to promote the GOP. Otherwise they would have not supported Romney in the last election, and would have either supported Obama or no candidate according to their own rules.
 
2012-12-03 12:22:31 PM

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*

Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


To provide fair consideration: they may have believed Mr. Mitt Romney of 2012 to be an entirely separate person from Mr. Mitt Romney of 2006. Given the substantial variances in political positions between the two Mr. Romney's, such confusion is understandable.
 
2012-12-03 12:24:15 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government


Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.
 
2012-12-03 12:27:55 PM
when the right wing's at your door
how you gonna come?
with your hands on your head
or on the trigger of your gun?
 
2012-12-03 12:27:58 PM

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*

Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


I mean they gave Reid a B and Angle an A, but they didn't endorse either of them: Link. They actually gave money to Reid as well.
 
2012-12-03 12:31:10 PM

skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.


Who funds the NRA? Who attends their rallies?

Gun rights advocates are mainly middle-class and upper-class people who worry that "law-abiding" people will be prevented by gun-control laws from arming themselves against "those people," who will find ways of getting guns no matter what the law says.
 
2012-12-03 12:31:16 PM

dittybopper: Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution.


Um, then why isn't it included the Constitution?

/hint: because the Founders didn't want the masses taking up arms against them either. Example: Shays' Rebellion
 
2012-12-03 12:31:55 PM
Anyone else scroll through this looking for funny pictures?
 
2012-12-03 12:33:58 PM

Fart_Machine: And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


Don't worry, if you haven't already you will soon be treated to the story of how he was tricked into signing that, but it was actually a good thing anyway.
 
2012-12-03 12:36:47 PM

dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.


I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.
 
2012-12-03 12:39:46 PM
Bag of Hammers: homelessdude:
The "The founding fathers didn't forsee *insert* advances in gun technology *insert" argument for *insert* gun control *insert*
You realize this is exactly the same argument the right makes for pushing internet censorship laws right?


hmmm....

FYI - I did not say that. Maybe it was part of a quoted response, but I did not write that particular part or anything like that.
 
2012-12-03 12:43:18 PM

dittybopper:
Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence.


no, the founding document of the united states of america is the constitution. it contains the 2nd amendment, a thing i've come to support because recent history teaches that it's useful to be able to defend oneself against rightwingers (see my previous post, (cf. the clash)).
 
2012-12-03 12:44:55 PM

dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?


Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama=??
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney=??
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it=??
 
2012-12-03 12:46:23 PM

verbaltoxin: dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.

I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.


No...those are all pretty reasonable. Because they're broad and qualified. Let me show you what comments that people have pulled from their ass actually look like:

*There are WMDs in Iraq
* Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda
* Mission Accomplished
* McCain is going to win
* Romney is going to win
* The polls are skewed
* QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it
* Obama was born in Kenya/went to a madrassa in Indonesia/faked his transcripts/etc
* Obamacare will tank the stock market/leave 250 million uninsured/destroy private insurers/etc
* The US will go through a 'Great Depression x 100'/bailout will kill us/etc
* GM & Chrysler can't be saved, let them die
* US will default if we raise debt ceiling

...are you beginning to sense the theme yet? I could literally do this for days. Years, even.
 
2012-12-03 12:51:12 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: GUN PR0N THREAD


Only gun pr0n? Or can we extend that to arms of the not-fire-kind so I can show off my lovely Hadhafang replica?
 
2012-12-03 12:58:32 PM

whistleridge: verbaltoxin: dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.

I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.

No...those are all pretty reasonable. Because they're broad and qualified. Let me show you what comments that people have pulled from their ass actually look like:

*There are WMDs in Iraq
* Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda
* Mission Accomplished
* McCain is going to win
* Romney is going to win
* The polls are skewed
* QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it
* Obama was born in Kenya/went to a madrassa in Indonesia/faked his transcripts/etc
* Obamacare will tank the stock market/leave 250 million uninsured/de ...


Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off the might of the US military; b) resupply themselves by turning to the very parties they claim to hate; and c) the revolution would restore the US to a golden age is a patently, unashamedly absurd claim. Revising history, like this fellow farker is doing here, contributes to the delusion.

Regarding the other stuff in your statement, I've by and large agreed with you in this thread, so condecension is wholly unnecessary on your part.
 
2012-12-03 01:01:58 PM

TNel: Anyone else scroll through this looking for funny pictures?


Yes, and I am largely disappointed.
 
2012-12-03 01:04:33 PM

verbaltoxin: vygramul: verbaltoxin:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.
Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...
Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?

They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?


Don't wet your pants, this is a pure hypothetical. It could be the Communist Revolution.
 
2012-12-03 01:07:04 PM
I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

img.photobucket.com

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these
 
2012-12-03 01:10:05 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government


The constitution does not define the purpose of militias beyond ensuring the a free state ("state" being consistenly used in the constitution to mean one of the thirteen). Article I section 8 gives the federal government to call out the militia (as well as arm it - it leaves one to wonder what shortfall the Founders were addressing by adding the second amendment if one accepts the "militia" interpretation.)
 
2012-12-03 01:10:09 PM

verbaltoxin: verbaltoxin: Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Agreed

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Agreed. But he DID qualify. Yeah, it's a Doomsday Prepper mindset, but it's still a qualification of sorts. I'm just saying.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

Yes and no. When revolutions don't get out of hand, they can be good things. The US revolution being the obvious example, but the Glorious Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and the fall of Communism/the Berlin Wall all also spring to mind. I think you're confusing 'revolution' with 'civil war'. If a revolution trips and falls into civil war, it's inevitably a bloodbath, and then we agree.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off the might of the US military; b) resupply themselves by turning to the very parties they claim to hate; and c) the revolution would restore the US to a golden age is a patently, unashamedly absurd claim. Revising history, like this fellow farker is doing here, contributes to the delusion.

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding the other stuff in your statement, I've by and large agreed with you in this thread, so condecension is wholly unnecessary on your part.

Sincere apologies. That was a fair and measured response, and I'm entirely at fault. I'll plead the habit of snark as a reason but not an excuse, and use this as a reminder to be more careful in the future :)

 
2012-12-03 01:10:28 PM

Cornelius Dribble: skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.

Who funds the NRA? Who attends their rallies?

Gun rights advocates are mainly middle-class and upper-class people who worry that "law-abiding" people will be prevented by gun-control laws from arming themselves against "those people," who will find ways of getting guns no matter what the law says.


huh? Who are the slaves then? Cuz they'll be allowed to arm themselves as well
 
2012-12-03 01:10:37 PM

whistleridge: verbaltoxin: dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.

I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.

No...those are all pretty reasonable. Because they're broad and qualified. Let me show you what comments that people have pulled from their ass actually look like:

*There are WMDs in Iraq
* Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda
* Mission Accomplished
* McCain is going to win
* Romney is going to win
* The polls are skewed
* QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it
* Obama was born in Kenya/went to a madrassa in Indonesia/faked his transcripts/etc
* Obamacare will tank the stock market/leave 250 million uninsured/de ...


Obamacare will be found unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-03 01:11:17 PM

vygramul: verbaltoxin: vygramul: verbaltoxin:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.
Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...
Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?

They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?

Don't wet your pants, this is a pure hypothetical. It could be the Communist Revolution.


You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.
 
2012-12-03 01:12:47 PM

ckccfa: I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

[img.photobucket.com image 850x637]

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these


Yes...but you also realize that is a single-prop plane operating over a country with exactly zero air defense? Any WWII fighter could shoot it down in a heartbeat, as could any 50's-era SAM site. Hell...flack alone would be enough.

They're useful tools to be sure, but until and unless we can figure out a way to use them in an area where we don't have total air superiority, we shouldn't become too reliant on them.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:08 PM

verbaltoxin: You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.


It's pretty much irrelevant. The Founders were constantly wetting themselves about Red Dawn actually happening, and they wrote the thing.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:57 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: And that's why the Constitution could use a good rewriting to get rid of cruft like this. In the Framers' time, your personal firepower was on par with the government's, and such an amendment made sense. Now, the government greatly outweapons you, and your guns aren't going to be watering the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution anytime soon. Act up, and you'll get a big old dose of Ruby Ridge or Waco shoved up your ass. And if that fails, you'll get obliterated by a UAV-launched missile you never see coming. Owning guns is a fine, useful thing for hunting and protecting your home, but it's not any more useful to your day-to-day well-being than the right to own a car or a computer, now that it isn't possible for Joe Sixpack to pose a credible threat to the government. We don't enshrine the rights to own cars and computers with special amendments, so it isn't clear why gun owning, or soldier-quartering-in-homes amendments need to be up there with crucial stuff like free speech and jury trials.


That's a rather defeatist attitude. The govt' totally outguns you these days so you might as well just walk yourself to the concentration camp if they go rouge. You encourage women to lie back and enjoy it if they're raped because the guy is bigger than them and they'll just get hurt if they fight back too?
 
2012-12-03 01:17:17 PM

whistleridge: * QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it


This is my favorite one, as the lack of inflation is a direct contradiction to what they say this is.

/ Not that Republicans are empirical.
 
2012-12-03 01:25:43 PM

whistleridge: verbaltoxin: verbaltoxin: Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Agreed

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Agreed. But he DID qualify. Yeah, it's a Doomsday Prepper mindset, but it's still a qualification of sorts. I'm just saying.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

Yes and no. When revolutions don't get out of hand, they can be good things. The US revolution being the obvious example, but the Glorious Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and the fall of Communism/the Berlin Wall all also spring to mind. I think you're confusing 'revolution' with 'civil war'. If a revolution trips and falls into civil war, it's inevitably a bloodbath, and then we agree.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off ...


Thank you for that and I'll only add this.

The Glorious Revolution was great.....for the English, Scots,and British Protestants in general. For Irish Catholics, not so well. The Orange Revolution has turned out great for Viktor Yushchenko and those who support him, but not so well for his opponents, such as former PM Yulia Tymoshenko. Even the fall of Communism hasn't been pretty: see the Balkan War, Slobodan Milosevic, Hungary's Jobbik Party, Russian quashing of civil liberties, the Russian-Chechen War, the Russian-Georgian War, and so on. All that was short and long term fall out of revolution.

Revolutions have consequences, not always civil war, but often political disenfranchisement, even for those (Such as Tymoshenko) who initially supported the revolution. When the French revolution broke down and the Reign of Terror started, being labeled a royalist was often an excuse to send you to the guillotine, not because you were proven to be a royalist. It's how Robespierre tried to purge his political enemies and consolidate power.

America's is unique because so few found themselves in the gallows when it was over, albeit the Loyalists had a bad time, and some ended up absconding to Canada, rather than face mobs or vengeful local governments.

With all that said, it takes a certain level of naivete to assume one could survive a revolution in this country, and assume your faction winds up on top because yours hoarded weapons and camped in the woods a lot.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:15 PM

verbaltoxin: Yulia Tymoshenko


She's still hot.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:49 PM

ckccfa: I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

[img.photobucket.com image 850x637]

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these


The Afghan War has shown that while UAV's are useful for tactical strikes and lingering reconnaissance assets in friendly air space, air superiority does little to ensure ground superiority without proper ground forces support. The planes all run out of gas sometime. What the US has though is really good ground support to make up for it.
 
2012-12-03 01:37:29 PM
Either take this argument to its logical conclusion and argue that all Americans should have the right to own Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, or just STFU. There are infinitely more important issues at hand these days that your right to pack heat when your shopping for underwear at Walmart.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:08 PM

verbaltoxin:
With all that said, it takes a certain level of naivete to assume one could survive a revolution in this country, and assume your faction winds up on top because yours hoarded weapons and camped in the woods a lot.


You misspelled 'ignorance' :p
 
2012-12-03 01:39:42 PM

vygramul: verbaltoxin: You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.

It's pretty much irrelevant. The Founders were constantly wetting themselves about Red Dawn actually happening, and they wrote the thing.


Yep, so they said you could have firearms as part of a well regulated militia.

See? I can beg the question, too!
 
2012-12-03 01:42:03 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Either take this argument to its logical conclusion and argue that all Americans should have the right to own Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, or just STFU. There are infinitely more important issues at hand these days that your right to pack heat when your shopping for underwear at Walmart.


You can buy military helicopters and tanks assuming they've been decommissioned. I don't think there are any Apaches or Abrams sitting around waiting to be purchased by civilians, but you can definitely find some older stuff. Since you're clearly interested in purchasing one, here's a handy link:
 
2012-12-03 01:43:25 PM
Guns are people, my friend.
 
2012-12-03 01:44:16 PM

lilbjorn: Guns are people, my friend.


except that they don't kill people.
 
2012-12-03 01:52:04 PM
I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.
 
2012-12-03 01:53:51 PM

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.


They wanted to be sure that effective militias could be formed in the event that the military or government became abusive. Who the hell do you think is in the militia anyway? Regular people, that's who.

Even with your completely distortion of the second amendment, everyone gets to own a gun.
 
2012-12-03 01:54:08 PM

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


I think the meta went to plaid, but them my sarcasmometer broke and now I have a weird boner.

// so I'm getting a kick, etc
 
Displayed 50 of 502 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report